All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Goodnight,
I am writing to inform you that your manuscript - Genetic diversity and population structure of parasite infrapopulations within and across hosts for two trophically transmitted trematode parasites - has been Accepted for publication. Congratulations!
Best regards,
Armando Sunny
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All comments and suggestions have been addressed.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, “Genetic diversity and population structure of parasite infrapopulations within and across hosts for two trophically transmitted trematode parasites,” to PeerJ. After careful review by our editorial team and external reviewers, we are pleased to inform you that your manuscript is generally well-received. However, there are minor corrections and clarifications required before it can be accepted for publication.
Below, we provide a summary of the key points raised by Reviewer 2 and the necessary revisions:
Major Comments:
Number of Sequences Used in the Study:
The reviewer has requested clarification on the number of sequences analyzed in your study. Please explicitly state this in the “Materials and Methods” section.
Submission of Sequences to GenBank:
The reviewer has inquired whether the sequences have been submitted to GenBank and if accession numbers are available. Please confirm and provide the accession numbers within the manuscript.
Minor Suggestions:
Line 254:
Remove the underlining from “(Steinberg et al. 2008)” and ensure no underlined text is present throughout the manuscript unless necessary.
Line 264:
Replace “accession #HQ141702” with “accession no. HQ141702.” Similar revisions should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.
Line 267:
Replace “accession #AB828006” with “accession no. AB828006.”
Line 278:
Remove the underlining from “Version 9, R. K. Colwell.”
Line 279:
Remove the underlining from “Colwell et al. 1997” and ensure “et al.” is formatted consistently throughout the manuscript (check if it should be italicized or in regular font).
Line 302:
Replace “accession #MG647799” with “accession no. MG647799.” Similar instances should be addressed throughout the text.
We kindly ask that you carefully revise the manuscript to address these comments. Once the revisions are complete, please submit the updated manuscript along with a detailed response letter outlining the changes made.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript soon.
Best regards,
Armando Sunny
- Well written with clear background and rationale.
- Literature references is sufficient field background.
- Appropriate article structure, figures, tables, raw data are provided.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
General comments
This manuscript is well written by concept of analysis of the genetics of the trematodes (Halipegus occidualis and Haematoloechus complexus) parasitized natural intermediate hosts (Pseudosuccinea snails, Planorbella snails, Odonates, and Frogs). I have no argument on manuscript that is well described based on scientific logic, methodology, result, and appropriate references.
Major comments:
-How many sequences of the trematode parasites from your study are used in analyzing?
-Did the author submit the sequences in GenBank to obtain accession number?
Minor suggestions are below:
-L254 No need to underline “(Steinberg et al 2008)”, please check throughout the manuscript
-L264 replace “accession #HQ141702” by “accession no. HQ141702”
-L267 replace “accession # AB828006” by “accession no. AB828006”
-L278 No need to underline “Version 9, R. K. Colwell”
-L279 No need to underline “Colwell et al. 1997” please check et al. Is it italic or regular font? Please check throughout the manuscript.
-L302 replace “accession #MG647799” by “(accession no. MG647799” please check throughout the manuscript
The manuscript presents interesting results of research on populations of two species of flukes with regard to their life cycles. Research on the ecology of parasite-host relationships and the ecology of the pattern of occurrence is not easy, especially in the case of digenic trematodes, and due to their biology very interesting and necessary, as we still know little about these relationships in the subsequent stages of the life cycle. The era of molecular biology has opened up new possibilities for research and analysis, but also new questions and the need to verify some of the older data and hypotheses.
I therefore consider the article to be valuable and worthy of publication. I have no major reservations about the methodology (minor ones below), and I find the discussion interesting; some of the hypotheses proposed by the authors will be more likely to be verified if other researchers undertake similar research and analysis, and the presented manuscript may be an incentive to do so.
No comment exept one:
Generally no comment, exept one:
I suggest adding raw data of prevalence, it is an old but very good practice of presenting data: number of infected individuals / number of infected, for each place, each population.
Some comments according conlusion in part "Additional comments"
1. I am not convinced that combining data from Lowe and Bell for lungworm is a good idea from an ecological point of view, I understand that statistically it is. Why so, comment, the differences in the level of infection at both sites are significant (rather also statistically), especially for frogs and snails, and furthermore the differences in these indicator (and proportions) at site Lowe are similar for both flukes species more than in case lungworms in both study sites...
Of course, I am aware of the difficulties involved in obtaining helminthological material of an equivalent number of specimens, but maybe the Bell represents a different ecological relationships, maybe occur other snail’s host? Of course is possible that infection of second intermediate hosts is a result of “clouds of clonal cercariae produced by single snails”, but still the difference between trematode’s prevalence in snail and frog in this pond is a bit surprising comparing to situation in Lowe.
2. The Authors decides to exclude the snails from analyses, because “digenetic trematodes reproduce asexually in the snail host and thus generally show no genetic diversity at the haplotype level” (line 334-335, and in several places in the text). It is true but only from one side. Snails are infected by miracidia that develop from eggs as a result of sexual reproduction of adult flukes, and a snail can be infected several times by different miracidia. In fact, the genetic differentiation of forms that we observe in subsequent hosts begins in snails, and later we only deal with transfer and possible accumulation. In a single snail this variation may be almost absent, but certainly not in a population of snails.
3. The sentence in discussion (line 612-614) “Therefore, we suggest that trophic transmission to the odonate stage may play a large role in supporting the maintenance of genetic diversity in isolated tongueworm populations, while for lungworms the trophic transfer to the final frog host is a larger driver of genetic diversity over time.” (i) What about ostracods role? I did not find any information about this host; (ii) I understand the mentioned above conclusion is a result of extensive statistical analysis, could you please try to explain the biological sense / significance of this?
4. Please check that in the description of Table 2 “p = mean nucleotide diversity per host” is right.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.