A Polinton-like Virus of C. parva Inhibits the Population Growth of a Newly Isolated Relative of Tethysvirus ontarioense

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes the discovery of a new large dsDNA virus and its association with a polinton-like virus. The work is important but the manuscript needs to be shortened considerably, especially the material and methods section and maybe the introduction. If the authors feel that all this detail is necessary, I recommend much of it be included as an attachment. My impression is that these two sections may have been taken from a thesis that required all this detail.  

Even with all the details in the Materials and Method section, there are some details missing, e.g. the temperatures used in the qPCR experiments and no size markers in Fig. 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript the authors report isolation of new phages CpV-BQ3 from Chrysochromulina parva which support the replication of a polinton-like virus CpV-PLV Moe and the interaction of these two viruses. Overall, it is informative but need to be revised before acceptance for publication.

 

Major.

 

This manuscript contains many redundant descriptions that blur the focus.

For examples.

1. The introduction needs to be focused. It is like a review of virophages. Describes thing closely related and necessary information.
2. There are many unnecessary repeats in the Material methods. For examples, lines 309-311 could be combined with lines 292-295 and lines 319 to 321 describing “Subsequently, sampling 319 frequency was reduced to every 48 h on Days 9, 11, 13, and 15. After Day 15 sampling was 320 limited to one final timepoint on Day 20” could be written in short like “ ---- followed by sampling at 9, 11, 12, 15 and 20 days after inoculation”
3. Te description on lines 459 to 476, lines 486 to 499 could be written in a short format.
4. Lines 535 to 539 can be combined in short
5. Lnes 549-553 can be deleted.
6. The conclusion needs to be written in short summary.

 

Minors

1. Although the authors shortened name for brevity as indicated on line 346-348, full virus names are used after that and need to be checked and corrected.
2. Lines 708 to 712 is only description of the results and not a interpretation that indicates only BQ3 not BQ1 supports the replication of Moe.
3. The name C. parva is not in italic at so many places through the manuscript and need to be checked.
4. Some figures such as Fig 6 could be shown in smaller size so that Figure A and B can be shown side by side
5. Unnecessary figure legends such as lines 549 t 553 could be removed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have shortened the manuscript as requested and I believe it reads much better. I did not see any legends to the supplemental figures that I received. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of the comments and questions have been answered and can be accepted now