Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have already reviewed the work submitted for review, and my opinion was positive and remains so. Specifically, the manuscript is interesting and important from both the biology and conservation perspectives of bats. The work itself is well-written, and the results are solidly executed and well-documented. Overall, the manuscript is a very good addition to existing knowledge. However, I have a few minor comments/suggestions before the work is officially accepted for publication:

1) please add accuracy to incubation temperatures

2) please add the names of the manufacturers for the substrates, their ingredients and reagents

3) please add the latest literature about fungi associated with bats

4) “...After 30 days of incubation...”

Why this incubation period and not another? Isn't it too short?

Author Response

I have already reviewed the work submitted for review, and my opinion was positive and remains so. Specifically, the manuscript is interesting and important from both the biology and conservation perspectives of bats. The work itself is well-written, and the results are solidly executed and well-documented. Overall, the manuscript is a very good addition to existing knowledge. However, I have a few minor comments/suggestions before the work is officially accepted for publication:

Response: Thank you for the comments.

 

1) please add accuracy to incubation temperatures

Response: Done, as suggested.

 

2) please add the names of the manufacturers for the substrates, their ingredients and reagents

Response: It is now added, as suggested.

 

3) please add the latest literature about fungi associated with bats

Response: We have added 4 additional references from the last 5 years in the Discussion section (32-35).

 

4) “...After 30 days of incubation...”

Why this incubation period and not another? Isn't it too short?

Response: The isolates at this temperature were monitored weekly and this period of incubation was enough for colony development of the Gamsia isolate reported in our study. Indeed, for other cave/bat associated fungi it is not, and then the incubation period was prolonged. This data will be included in the future publications, where other isolates would be reported.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Gamsia batmanii sp. nov. Isolated from a Common Bent-Wing Bat and a Review of the Genus Gamsia” represents valuable research on the still underexplored subterranean fungal diversity. The work is particularly noteworthy for describing a new species isolated from the skin of the Schreibers’ Bent-winged bat. I have several minor comments that may help improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript:

1. Line 14: Please delete the word “bat” after Miniopterus schreibersii to avoid redundancy.
2. Line 51: Please delete “M. Morele” as it is currently unclear whether this is a citation or the name of the person who first identified the genus. Clarification or removal is needed.
3. Line 66: Please briefly explain how the authors determined that the sampled bats were young. A short clarification would improve reader understanding.
4. Line 82: Consider adding additional subheadings such as “Morphological Observation” and “DNA Extraction and Amplification” to improve structure and readability.
5. Line 123 (Table 1): Replace the term “Isolate” with “Strains” or “Sequences examined for …” to more accurately reflect the content of the table.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a careful language proofreading of the entire manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency.

Author Response

The manuscript entitled “Gamsia batmanii sp. nov. Isolated from a Common Bent-Wing Bat and a Review of the Genus Gamsia” represents valuable research on the still underexplored subterranean fungal diversity. The work is particularly noteworthy for describing a new species isolated from the skin of the Schreibers’ Bent-winged bat. I have several minor comments that may help improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript:

Response: Thank you for the comments.

 

1. Line 14: Please delete the word “bat” after Miniopterus schreibersii to avoid redundancy.

Response: Done, as suggested.

 

1. Line 51: Please delete “M. Morele” as it is currently unclear whether this is a citation or the name of the person who first identified the genus. Clarification or removal is needed.

Response: It is the name of the person who identified the genus. In order to avoid confusion, we deleted it, as suggested.

 

1. Line 66: Please briefly explain how the authors determined that the sampled bats were young. A short clarification would improve reader understanding.

Response: We have now added a sentence and the reference to clarify this, as suggested.

 

1. Line 82: Consider adding additional subheadings such as “Morphological Observation” and “DNA Extraction and Amplification” to improve structure and readability.

Response: Done as requested. Two new subheadings have replaced the Fungal identification subheading.

 

1. Line 123 (Table 1): Replace the term “Isolate” with “Strains” or “Sequences examined for …” to more accurately reflect the content of the table.

Response: Done, as requested.

 

I recommend a careful language proofreading of the entire manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency.

Response: We have now checked the manuscript and improved clarity and consistency.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work submitted for review is interesting and important from the point of view of both bat biology and conservation. The work itself is well-written, and the results are solidly executed and well-documented. Overall, the manuscript is a very good addition to existing knowledge. However, I have a few minor comments/suggestions before the work is officially accepted for publication:

1) please add accuracy to incubation temperatures

2) please add the names of the manufacturers for the substrates, their ingredients and reagents

3) please add the latest literature, e.g. 10.3390/ani15203020

4) results from a complete BLAST analysis are welcome as e.g. appendix or additional material

5) ln 71; “...After 30 days of incubation, the unidentified fungal colony was reinoculated on PDA, malt...”

Why this incubation period and not another? Isn't it too short?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Gamsia batmanii sp. nov. Isolated from a Common Bent-Wing Bat and a Review of the Genus Gamsia” represents valuable research on the still underexplored subterranean fungal diversity. The work is particularly noteworthy for describing a new species isolated from the skin of the Schreibers’ Bent-winged bat. I have several minor comments that may help improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript:

1. Line 14: Please delete the word “bat” after Miniopterus schreibersii to avoid redundancy.
2. Line 51: Please delete “M. Morele” as it is currently unclear whether this is a citation or the name of the person who first identified the genus. Clarification or removal is needed.
3. Line 66: Please briefly explain how the authors determined that the sampled bats were young. A short clarification would improve reader understanding.
4. Line 82: Consider adding additional subheadings such as “Morphological Observation” and “DNA Extraction and Amplification” to improve structure and readability.
5. Line 123 (Table 1): Replace the term “Isolate” with “Strains” or “Sequences examined for …” to more accurately reflect the content of the table.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 I recommend a careful language proofreading of the entire manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In the discussion, G. columbina is designated as the type species of the genus Gamsia, with G. dimera and G. simplex treated as synonyms. However, in the work of Sandoval-Denis et al. and in current taxonomic databases, it appears that G. dimera, often considered a synonym of G. simplex, is usually the type species, while G. columbina remains a distinct species. Could the authors clarify the source on which they based their choice of type species and synonymy, and consider adapting the text to this accepted concept? The type species and main synonyms could be clearly summarized in a short paragraph or table – such a solution could be helpful here as well.

The new species differs from Gamsia sp. NWHC 44767-31 by only 3 base pairs in the ITS (99.39% concordance), and the authors suggest that these isolates may represent the same species. In many fungal groups, this level of ITS variation is still within the intraspecific range, especially if the differences in LSU and TEF1α are also small. Could the authors explain in more detail why they chose to describe a new species in this situation, rather than treating the GenBank strain as conspecific and including it as an additional isolate of G. batmanii?

In the abstract, the conidia of G. batmanii are described as "monoblastic," while in the morphology description, the conidiogenic cells are described as polyblastic. Because "monoblastic" and "polyblastic" denote mutually exclusive conidiation types, this may be confusing for the reader. Could the authors clarify which conidiation type was actually observed and standardize the terminology throughout the manuscript? It would also strengthen the taxonomic aspect if two or three key features differentiating G. batmanii from G. aggregata and G. columbina were explicitly mentioned (e.g., conidia size and shape, annelid morphology), similar to the recent descriptions of Cephalotrichum and Penicillium species.

The summary concludes that G. batmanii is likely not a mammalian pathogen, is oligotrophic, and has ecological and even biotechnological significance. Are these conclusions based primarily on the lack of growth at 37°C, growth on SNA, and general characteristics of the cave environment, without dedicated studies on pathogenicity, nutritional requirements, or metabolite production? Would the authors consider softening these formulations or more clearly presenting them as hypotheses? For example, the lack of growth at 37°C could “suggest limited potential for mammalian pathogenicity, although the impact on bat health remains unknown,” the growth on SNA that it is “consistent with the ability to survive in an oligotrophic cave environment,” and the potential biotechnological significance as an interesting avenue for future research rather than a feature already demonstrated.

In my opinion, the results presented in the manuscript are very interesting, I rate the work very positively, however, I believe that before publication the manuscript requires further refinement, especially in terms of the interpretation and evaluation of the presented data.