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. Zhao, I am pleased to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication. I hope that you will continue your research into nematode diversity and will send your articles to our journal more than once.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The topic of this scientific work is very interesting and relevant. The authors reviewed the literature on behavioral adaptations of Caenorhabditis elegans against pathogenic threats. The Introduction adequately introduces the subject of research.
The survey methodology is fully consistent with the coverage of the subject. The sources were paraphrased accordingly. The review organized logically into coherent subsections.
The conclusion is written in a high-quality manner. It identifies future directions.
The authors took into account all comments when re-working the manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors, I ask you to make the technical corrections recommended by the reviewers.
The study of nematode behavior using the example of Caenorhabditis elegans in relation to pathogens is a rather promising research topic in the field of medicine and veterinary medicine. Therefore, these studies are of significant scientific and practical interest.
The authors of the article conducted a thorough analysis of the literature on the behavioral adaptation of Caenorhabditis elegans to pathogenic microorganisms. The manuscript is written in a high-quality manner. The authors of the article did a lot of work by searching in the PubMed databases for articles. The authors of this review paid great attention to scientific studies that were conducted in different years.
The conclusions should be completely rewritten and shortened. The authors should summarize the results of the literature review they have already conducted for each section. References to literary sources are not allowed in the section «Conclusions». Authors must formulate their own conclusions based on the literature analysis. For example, you can indicate which aspects of the ecology of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans have been studied better, which have been studied worse. And which areas of research on this topic are promising for future study.
I recommend that authors shorten the title of the publication. The title should be short and concise. For example, «Behavioral adaptations of Caenorhabditis elegans against pathogenic threats».
Some of the information in the review is presented in text form and the rest is presented in Table 1. I ask the authors to explain this distribution of literary material.
In the title of Table 1 the nematode species must be indicated in italics.
The text contains a reference to Table 1 and the source at the same time, although the table also contains data from literature sources. For example, line 137: «acquired avoidance mechanism(Table 1)(Zhang et al. 2005a).»; рядок 160: «PA14(Table 1)(Hadziselimovic et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2022)…». Therefore, authors need to choose one way of citations.
Lines 99-104. The statement must be confirmed by literature references.
I ask authors to pay attention to punctuation throughout the text. When citing, a space must be placed before the parentheses with the source, after the author’s last name, and before the year, a comma in parentheses must be placed. For example, on line 52, the following corrections must be made: (Leung et al., 2008; Wernike et al., 2014); line 161: «…signaling pathways (Bai et al., 2022)», 164: «…signal-regulated phenomenon (Hadziselimovic et al., 2014; Kitazono et al., 2017) etc.
All references in the text do not meet the requirements of the publication. For example, Leung et al. 2008 should be Leung et al., 2008 (lines: 52);
Meisel & Kim 2014 should be Meisel & Kim, 2014 (lines: 56-57).
References - needs to be improved, they are made with errors. For example, Adair KL, and Douglas AE. 2017. Making a microbiome: the many determinants of host-associated microbial community composition. Curr Opin Microbiol 35:23-29. 10.1016/j.mib.2016.11.002
It should be
Adair KL, Douglas AE. 2017. Making a microbiome: the many determinants of host-associated microbial community composition. Current Opinion in Microbiology 35:23–29 10.1016/j.mib.2016.11.002
fig1. If possible, you should improve the image quality.
1. The name of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans should be written without abbreviations only when it is first mentioned in the main text (line 48), in the rest of the cases the generally accepted abbreviation C. elegans should be used (lines: 53, 58, 62, 99, 118, 131, 195, 210, 227, 234, 253, 273, 285, 295, 337, 367, 381, 434, 447, 450, scientifically recognized abbreviation.
2. Similar to the names of other pathogens – Pseudomonas aeruginosa and others (lines: 134, 143, 183, 184, 224, 240, 241, 283, 293, 298, 306, 311, 314, 324, 336, 441) should be reviewed throughout the text and corrections made.
3. There are places in the text where spaces are superfluous (lines: 143, 225, 283, 290, 295, 369, 431), and where they are necessary – green underlining (lines: 52, 56, 62, 65, 68,74,77, 106,109, 110, 113, 115-117, 124, 127, 137, 139, 141, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 157, 160, 164, 166, 172, 176, 180, 183, 185, 188, 198, 201, 203, 214, 221, 222, 226, 230, 233, 237, 240, 243, 248, 251, 253, 257, 259, 262, 266, 275, 285-288, 295, 297, 301, 310, 317, 319, 322, 330, 333, 338, 347, 349, 355, 357, 371, 373, 386, 393, 400, 405, 408, 410, 414, 418, 422, 424, 431, 435, 442, 446, 448, 454).
4. It is known that the names of genera and species are written in italics, it should be reviewed throughout the text (lines: 218, 241, 293, 348, 356, 451, 452).
5. The spelling of S. Typhimurium species should be corrected to S. typhimurium (lines: 218), C. elegans (lines: 293, 356), B. nematocida (lines: 348), Pseudomonas (lines: 403, 440), LactoBacillus replaced by Lactobacillus (lines: 403), Enterococcus faecalis (lines: 451), Staphylococcus aureus (lines: 452).
6. Periods are missing at the end of the sentence (lines: 74, 431).
Conclusions as presented are a smooth continuation of the review. It is worth summarizing what the researchers discovered, possibly in their own words without references to the authors. It is possible to pay attention to what still needs to be studied and the prospects of further scientific research using C. elegan, ....
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.