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 authors, thank you for the corrections and additions to the original manuscript and the careful consideration of the reviewers' suggestions. This has indeed led to an improved version of the manuscript. As the reviewers invited to the second round of review had no further comments, and after considering your rebuttal, I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of your paper for publication in PeerJ.
However, after reviewing the revised manuscript again, I have identified some minor formatting and language issues that should be addressed in order to achieve the final goal. I would therefore ask you to consider the comments in the attached pdf file and submit a final corrected version.
Thank you again for choosing PeerJ as your publication platform.
Kind regards,
Olja Vidjak
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
no further comments/recommendations
no further comments/recommendations
no further comments/recommendations
no further comments
Dear authors,
I have now received two reviews of your manuscript, one recommending a major revision and the other advocating a minor revision. Although both reviewers feel that it is suitable for publication, they have also raised some questions and comments, and I believe that addressing them can really improve the quality of your manuscript. Based on their feedback and my personal opinion, I invite you to revise your manuscript in line with the reviews you have received.
Please pay particular attention to the clarification of the ambiguities in the experimental design (sampling, preservation, extraction method) and the discussion of the results as requested by reviewer 2, and to the request for additional supporting literature raised by reviewer 1.
Please also correct the following points in the revised version:
Line 67 - Sponges are aquatic invertebrates lacking a backbone, and they belong… -please delete the words “lacking a backbone”, the term “invertebrate” already explains it.
Lines 60, 66, 74, 93, 94, 140, 141, 149, 236, 239, 254, 256, 260, 268 - The references in the text should be cited consistently in the text: if there are more than two authors, only the last name of the first author, followed by et al. (year)
Line 127 - Staphylococcus aureus should be italicized
Line 135 … Sponge extract (do not capitalize sponge here)
Line 148 - the correct citation in the text is Balouiri et al. (2016)
Line 181 – “via” should be written in italics
Line 189, line 192 and line 193 – Stelleta, Dactylospongia and Haliclona should be written in italics
Lines 221 and 222 (also in Abstract) - the names of the chemical compounds should not be capitalized (gallic acid, caffeic acid, bolinaquinone, dactyloquinone)
Line 234 – the correct citation in the text should be Ebada et al. (2017)
Line 234-236 - Ebada, S. et al. indicated that Pelorol isolated from this sponge, despite showing moderate to strong antimicrobial activity against the tested microorganisms, specifically against S. aureus and E. faecalis with MIC (3.125 and 12.5 μM) (Ebada, de Voogd, Kalscheuer, Müller, & Proksch, 2017).- this sentence needs to be reworded to improve clarity
Line 237 - Rong Zhong and his colleagues… should read Zhong et al. (2014)
Line 240 - M. Nazemi and his team – Nazemi et al.
Line 252 – gallic acid should not be capitalized
Line 258 - … conducted by Khan et al. (2021)
Line 261- Pinho et al. (2014)
Line 265 this species as reported by Ibrahim et al. (2022).
Line 266 – Dactyloquinone should not be capitalized
Line 272 - D. elegans should be written in italics
Lines 273 and 274 - Bolinaquinone and Dactyloquinone should not be capitalized
Table 2 – please replace K.aerogen with K. aerogenes
Legends to Tables and Figure 1 – do not capitalize every word
Table 2 – either capitalize limonene, ocimene and indole-3-carbaldehyde, or alternatively remove capitalization for all compounds in the table
Please provide a detailed response to the comments received (point by point) with clear answers and references to corrections along with the revised version of your manuscript.
I look forward to receiving the revised version,
with kind regards,
Olja Vidjak
It is acceptable with minor revision
Need some explation on the sample collection and MDR profile
Good
Please revise according to the review report
The manuscript entitled “Exploring the antibacterial potential of deep-marine sponges from the Jordanian Gulf of Aqaba” highlights the potential of D. elegans, as a promising source of bioactive metabolites with significant antibacterial properties, offering insights into combating antimicrobial resistance. However, several points require further revision before it can be considered for publication as follows:
- The manuscript lacks keywords, which are essential for enhancing searchability.
- All abbreviations should be spelled out as full terms upon their first appearance in the manuscript. This includes but is not limited to ATCC, MRSA, BLAST.
- The manuscript contains numerous redundant or unclear details, requiring concise revision for improved clarity and readability.
- Additionally, please read and revise your manuscript according to the other comments/suggestions
- The paper does not specify how the marine invertebrate samples were preserved before analysis, which is crucial for ensuring the reliability.
- Table 1 should be merged into the Sponge Collection section under Materials & Methods, including voucher sample codes and their repository details to allow researchers to reference them in future studies.
- There is ambiguity in describing the sponge extraction method, where maceration (cold extraction) and decoction (boiling-based extraction) are mentioned, but their application remains unclear. Furthermore, boiling is reported to occur at 55–60°C, which contradicts ethanol’s boiling point at 78.4°C, requiring clarification for scientific accuracy.
3. Validity of the Findings
• The antibacterial potency values should include SEM to ensure statistical accuracy in comparison to the positive reference values throughout the whole manuscript.
• The presence of hydrophilic phenolic compounds (gallic acid, caffeic acid, catechin) in sponge or sponge-associated bacteria is questionable unless the bacteria were cultivated on sources containing the precursor of these compounds. Since LC-MS analysis provides only annotated compound identification, results should be interpreted cautiously unless a 100% similarity index is confirmed with the exact mass fragmentation pattern of the compounds. Therefore, the explanation of sponge 2’s antimicrobial activity is not based on solid evidence. However, the activity might arise from synergistic effects of multiple compounds, so authors should correlate compounds above 2% in abundance with antibacterial activity through a literature review. Also, the presence of gallic acid, caffeic acid, catechin, and other small phenolic compounds should be supported by citations from studies on sponges or sponge-derived bacteria.
• Images of the three sponge specimens should be included, along with their Geographic Coordinates. Additionally, diagnostic macro- and microscopical elements distinguishing the three sponges should be provided, such as spicule morphology and measurements, before DNA barcoding description. Also, Figure 1 should be enhanced to high resolution to allow readers to follow the Phylogenetic Tree based on 28S rRNA sequences.
• The manuscript contains excessive repetition in the Results section, which should be revised to focus on key findings while directing the detailed discussions to the Discussion section. An alternative approach is to merge both sections under a single Results & Discussion heading.
• The rationale behind selecting 80% DMSO as a negative control needs justification, as DMSO concentration usually does not exceed 10% in the sponge extract diluted solution in the antibacterial evaluation.
• Manufacturer names, cities, and countries for chemicals, culture media, instruments, and used software must be included in the Materials & Methods section. Additionally, citations for standard criteria such as McFarland turbidity should be provided.
• Sentences should not begin with numbers, as seen in line 168.
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.