Algicidal Efficiency and Genotoxic Effects of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against Microcystis aeruginosa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work presents interesting research results in the field of counteracting eutrophication nipples - the formation of toxic water blooms caused by Cyanobacteria Microcystis aeruginosa - by treating this cyanosis with white rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium, whose ability to oxidation of persistent environmental pollutants was already promoted in the eighties of the last century (Bumpus et all 1985).
Remark (1): I believe that at the end of the chapter "Introduction" or at the beginning of the chapter "Test method" there should be a clear plan and scope of the tests carried out, with an indication of why each procedure is carried out. A detailed description of the research procedures alone is not enough for the reader, when he does not know why, and sometimes on what material (e.g. determination of chlorophyll concentration) they were performed. The explanations are only in the "Results" chapter, e.g. lines 148-155 or 197-198.
Remark (2): It is hard to agree with the statement that "the eco-toxicity between white-rot fungi and algae has not been reported" (line 41). Zeng et all. (2015) described in the work "Algicidal efficiency and mechanism of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against harmful algal bloom species" that the algal cells of Cryptomonas obovata, Oscillatoria sp., and Scenedesmus quadricauda were severely damaged by P. chrysosporium and were finally degraded directly by the fungus, which has good algicidal properties. In addition, the Authors themselves in line 216 write: "The algicidal efficiency of fungus on algae was observed in 2010 [8]."
Zeng, Guoming & Wang, Pu & Wang, Ying. (2015). Algicidal efficiency and mechanism of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against harmful algal bloom species. Algal Research. 12. 182-190. 10.1016/j.algal.2015.08.019.
Remark (3): The first two sentences from "Total chlorophyll-a content" do not match the title (lines 83-87).
Remark (4): All figure captions and table headers should be expanded to allow perception without searching for information in the text. For example, the current description of Table 2 does not show in which cells (according to line 250 and 255 in blood cells of Fejervarya multistriata tadpoles) DNA damage was tested, and the differentiation with which cells these blood cells had contact is also a problem.
Remark (5): Fig. 3 - Different scale extensions on both parts of the graph (a and b) make it difficult to compare the changes of both absorption spectrum curves - I suggest drawing both curves with different colors in one coordinate system. The drawing caption should contain at least a reference to a fragment of the text in lines 181-187 that indicates significant lengths.
In addition, the names of the cyanobacteria Microcystis aeruginosa should and Phanerochaete chrysosporium should be in italics.
Remark (6): What is "Itme" in table 1?
Remark (7): Unclear test description in lines 251–253. What cells were stained with Trypan blue?
Remark (8): There are no spaces in many places (e.g. in line 19 is „group,The”, in line 23 is “48 h.These”, etc.) and especially in the “Literature”.
Remark (9): I also suggest re-editing of the abstract, taking into account the legitimacy of providing detailed culture parameters (temperature, especially DO content - no explanation of the abbreviation), a clearer description of the results of the SPSS analysis (concerns changes in the number of MN frequencies and abnormal nuclei) and addition of clear information that the results of the culture of Fejervarya multistriata tadpoles carried out in the presence of the Microcystis aeruginosa colony and cyanobacteria in the presence of Phanerochaete chrysosporium (not "These results show" - line 23) showed that the frequency of nuclear anomalies and DNA damage in the red blood cells of tadpoles was significantly smaller when these tadpoles were bred in the presence of cyanobacterial colonies treated with this fungus.
Author Response
Dear Editor，
Here enclosed is a completely new manuscript entitled “Algicidal efficiency and genotoxic effects of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against Microcystis aeruginosa”, which we wish to be considered.In this manuscript, eutrophication has become a serious environmental problem. White-rot fungus has been indicated as a biological method for controlling eutrophication. it is an interesting research,and thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions. We have modified the paper，please check the attachment and the revised paper, thank you.
Warm regards
Guoming Zeng
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find attached my specific comments relating to your manuscript. At this time, I believe that it falls short of publication standard and therefore recommend making the suggested changes.
Kind regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor，
Here enclosed is a completely new manuscript entitled “Algicidal efficiency and genotoxic effects of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against Microcystis aeruginosa”, which we wish to be considered.In this manuscript, eutrophication has become a serious environmental problem. White-rot fungus has been indicated as a biological method for controlling eutrophication. it is an interesting research,and thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions. We have modified the paper，please check the attachment and the revised paper, thank you.
Warm regards
Guoming Zeng
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author did an interesting study. But due to poor write up and weak literature review it requires further improvement. Moreover, research design require more clarification.
The whole manuscript need to revise with accurate grammar and biological term. In the introduction you need to add the background of choosing Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Microcystis aeruginosa for this study and it would be good to put appropriate seminal references rather using the old one. All through the paper you used very few seminal references.
Line 12-14: “We evaluated the algicidal efficiency and genotoxic effects induced by Microcystis aeruginosa cocultured with Phanerochaete chrysosporium for 24 h and 48 h under the optimum conditions of 250 mg-l Phanerochaete chrysosporium at 25°C with a DO of 7.0 mg-l.”
This statement is contradictory with the title. The word induced by Microcystis aeruginosa doesn’t fit here.
Another thing, rather using we better to use this study evaluated…..
Line 15: The results showed that (please careful regarding tense and grammar)
Line 18: algal cells of Microcystis aeruginosa ( not in)
Line 19: The micronucleus ( why capital T???)
Line 23: These results demonstrated that (please careful about grammar)
Line 24: Fejervarya multistriata (scientific name must be italic)
Line 24: removed algae and reduced genotoxic effects.
Line 25-26: Rewrite the whole sentence.
Line 27: genotoxic effects
Line 30: not overnutrition ( you can write the richness of nutrients)
Line 31: Reference 1 is not appropriate for this statement, please find a more suitable one.
Line 38: As such, it was considered as a promising approach for the future (follow the correction).
Line 40: Secretions of what????
Line 44-46: Rewrite the whole sentences with right grammar and correct biological term.
Line 63: What is the amount you prepared 100mL or 1000 mL?? please clarify
Line 75: What do you mean by stages 32-36, please explain.
Line 76: Is this average body length or weight or individual?? Please explain
Line 73: How many tadpoles were you used and how did you maintain and feed them??? Please clarify clearly. This is very important to know please clearly describe.
Line 275: please mention some of the factor which you are considering for ecological safety.
References: All through your references scientific name must be italics and journal name pattern should follow consistency either short or elaborate format rather mixing both.
Author Response
Dear Editor，
Here enclosed is a completely new manuscript entitled “Algicidal efficiency and genotoxic effects of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against Microcystis aeruginosa”, which we wish to be considered.In this manuscript, eutrophication has become a serious environmental problem. White-rot fungus has been indicated as a biological method for controlling eutrophication. it is an interesting research,and thank you very much for your good comments and suggestions. We have modified the paper，please check the attachment and the revised paper, thank you.
Warm regards
Guoming Zeng
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for implementing the suggested changes, I find the manuscript to be much improved. However, I do think that it can still benefit from a thorough proof read from a native English speaker. Additionally, although not my place to deny publication based upon this, your figures are highly simplistic and do not look professional when compared with figures from other publications. If it were me, I would remake these figures to be more aesthetically pleasing. Finally, you mention that you have performed t-tests on your data set, but I do not see a t value reported in your manuscript. Please add all relevant test statistics.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author did a good job to put necessary correction in the revised version but still the language is weak and errors remain. I am just showing few examples but there are many in the manuscript. Therefore, I would suggest to revise the manuscript again carefully to avoid those mistakes.
Example 1: Line 13 you have written, We use this study evaluated ( This is completely wrong sentence making)
Line 16: with a dissolved oxygen ( a?????)
Line no 310: Synechococcus which is a scientific name but you didn't make it italic.
These type of mistakes still remain all over the manuscript. Please follow the correction carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
