Sponge–Microbial Symbiosis and Marine Extremozymes: Current Issues and Prospects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript SPONGE-MICROBIAL SYMBIONTS AS POTENTIAL SOURCES OF MARINE EXTREMOZYMES: BENEFITS, PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES by Praise Tochukwu Nnaji et al. seemed very interesting by title, but the text is very confusing and does not focus on extremozymes, but rather on the ecology of sponges and on the difficulties of cultivability of microorganisms. Few reports on previous researches on extremozymes and extermophiles from marine habitat. References are wrong both in text and at the end of the manuscript: according the format of Sustainability journal "References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript". More, almost all references reported incorrect author names: authors reported the first name not the family name (i.e. ref. n. 3: Andrea, C. (2013). Corals’ indispensable bacterial buddies like humans, orals may be superorganism. Oceanus magazine; 50: 2_Andrea is the first name; Carter is the family name; and many other...)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall a good manuscript, but needs minor corrections before acceptance.
- Please check the formatting of some words.
- Name of organism should be in italic, please check it.
- Please a one table indicating the enzyme production by marine extremophiles. It will help readers
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors in their manuscript “ Sponge-microbial symbionts as potential 2 source of marine extremozymes: benefits, pro-3 spects and challenges” tried to explore and summarise the role of microbial symbionts as a source of marine extremozymes. They have also mentioned why its is required to develop cost effective methods for the same. The review is narrated well and section wise arrangement leading to conclusion.
However there are certain points if addressed by the authors properly , can give a better insight for the understanding of the reader.
In the abstract:
Towards the ened there has to be concrete statement that what exactly has been explained in the review and what the authors are trying to communicate through this review.
Major issues: Incorporation of biochemical pathway of production of the reported extremozyme (produced by the microorganism associated with sponges) and the English language improvisation for better understanding
Minor issues: Incorporation of 1 or 2 pictorial representation of production of such enzymes from sponge associated microorganism,
Figure 3 can be replaced by a tabular representation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors improved a lot the manuscript according reviewers' suggestions. However, there are still several mistakes in reference section.
Author Response
Reviewer: Authors improved a lot the manuscript according reviewers' suggestions. However, there are still several mistakes in the reference section.
Author: Thank you for the remark on the improvement. However, I would want to remark the following with regards to issues in the reference section:
1) I had initially suggested that if there is a way to retrieve the family names of the authors as you initially raised, it will be appreciated. This is because the references provided have been written based on the first name that appears in the paper. I have no idea if it is the author's family name or first name and the other names were represented with initials.
2) If there 'are several mistakes' please clearly state them out so that I can address them one after the other.
Thank you
