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. Villanueva,
I apologize for addressing you by your first name. This is done automatically by the journal as is the letter of acceptance. I cannot change it, only add to it. The written English of your manuscript is adequate. Even so, I suggest that the next time you submit an article, you have it read by a native English speaker.
Sincerely,
Linda Holland
I have confirmed that the authors responded adequately to all my comments. I would like to recommend that the article be acceptable for the PeerJ.
No comment.
No comment.
Everything seems fine.
Everything seems fine.
Everything seems fine.
Everything seems fine.
Dear Dr. Villaneuva,
Two reviewers have returned their reviews. Although both deemed the requested revisions to be "minor", I think they are sufficiently major for the reviewers to re-review the manuscript once you have revised it. Please pay particular attention to the comments of reviewer no 2 in regard to the reviewer's questions as to the validity of the findings and the comments for the authors.
Sincerely,
Linda Holland
The authors of the present paper revealed that indomethacin, known as a strobilation-inducing substance in moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita, reproducibly induces metamorphosis in Cassiopea xamachana scyphistomae. The finding provides a useful tool for biological, biochemical, and molecular studies of the metamorphosis in this species.
This work was accomplished well, and the paper is clear and concise for the most part. I would, however, recommend certain potential improvements in the manuscript and Figures.
Some minor comments / suggestions:
> Lines 92 & 93: "Fig. 1"
- Possibly Fig. 2?
> Line 105: "the indole compounds retinol"
- Retinol is not an indole compound.
> Line 176: "Scyphistomae began to strobilate with a maximum difference of only 24 h"
- This description is hard to understand.
> Figure 1:
- Scale bar(s) should be inserted in the photo(s).
> Figure 2:
- Many readers do not know which scyphistoma is, which strobila is, and which ephyra is. The names of stages (planula, scyphistoma, strobila, ephyra, and so on) should be put in Figure 2 or its legend.
> Figure 1 & Figure 2:
- "Life cycle of Cassiopea xamachana" should be shown in Figure 1 and "Microscopic analysis of Symbiodinium presence..." should be Figure 2. The results (microscopic analysis and others) should be shown after the basic information of life cycle is described.
Some minor comments / suggestions:
> Lines 128 - 138: "Experimental treatments"
- In addition to retinol, 9-cis-retinoic acid (9-cis RA) should be tested if possible. Fuchs et al. (2014) showed that both retinol and 9-cis RA have strobilation-inducing activity.
> Line 132: "Five scyphistomae were placed into individual wells of a microtiter plate..."
- The size of microtiter plate should be described (24-well, 12-well, or 6-well plate?). The volume of culture medium should be described.
Some minor comments / suggestions:
> Lines 184 & 185: "(not shown)"
- These data should be shown because the relationship between strobilation-inducing activity and temperature / illumination conditions is an interesting topic.
Some minor comments / suggestions:
> Lines 105 & 106: "5-methoxy-2-methyl indole acetic acid", "5 methoxyindole-2 carboxylic acid", "5 methoxy-2-methylindole"
- The names of compounds are incorrect. The correct names are
"5-methoxy-2-methyl-3-indoleacetic acid",
"5-methoxyindole-2-carboxylic acid",
and "5-methoxy-2-methylindole".
> Line 143: "strobile" should be "strobilae".
> Line 309: "strobile" should be "a strobila".
> Line 318: The word "which" should be deleted.
> Line 318: "These" should be "They".
> Line 326: "strobile" should be "strobila".
> Line 328: "Indomethacin" should be "indomethacin".
Conforms to standards
A very interesting manuscript.
Did zooxanthellae have anything to do with the strobilation? (the authors said that they often have zooxanthellae-contaminated cultures)
Did the scyphistomae have any symbionts?
What happens if the scyphistomae are induced to strobilate in the dark? (i.e. not a light:dark cycle)
There are some published givens in strobilation of Cassiopeia:
1. they have to be big enough (>1mm diameter polyp?). How big were the polyps in the current study?
2. >22-23oC
3. Some light (not complete darkness)
4. About 5-10,000 zooxanthellae (but see Rahat & Hofmann Endocytobidology III, Vol. 503, New York Academy of Sciences)
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.