Diversity and Distribution Characteristics of Culturable Bacteria in Burqin Glacier No. 18, Altay Mountains, China
, Xue Yu 2,3, Shiyu Wu 1,2,3, Ling Yang 5, Binglin Zhang 1,2,3, Feiteng Wang 1,2, Guangxiu Liu 1,2,4, Tuo Chen 1,2,3,* and Wei Zhang 1,2,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript by Tian et al has profiled the culturable diversity of bacteria from a previously unstudied glacier environment, using a culturomic approach involving a variety of medium types. This is an extensive study in which over 900 bacterial isolates were identified from various ecological zones of the glacier, many of which appear to be novel, and a promising source of pigments and other bioactives. This study is interesting and will make a good contribution the existing literature involving the microbiology of pristine environments.
The background information is presented well and clearly, identifying a knowledge gap and providing good rationale for the study. The methodology is clear and the conclusions drawn seem appropriate. The paper is well-written and the results are well-presented. I would consider it suitable for publication in Diversity, subject to the authors addressing the below comments.
Line 37-40. I recommend that the first sentence of paragraph 2 is removed. “Glacier ecosystems are driven by microorganisms and, in that, they are unique among other terrestrial biomes” is an untrue statement. The authors state that glacier ecosystems are unique because they are driven by microbes, and that glacial microorganisms participate in biogeochemical cycling, carbon cycling, and other ecological roles. These microbial functions are certainly not unique to glacier environments; microorganisms will be conducting these roles in most/all natural environments.
Line 78: “BDI samples was collected ” should be “BDI samples were collected”
Line 80: “BW samples was collected” should be “BW samples were collected”
Line 81: Please state the type and size of bottles.
Line 104: Please state the type and size of flask.
Line 115: “cultures” should be “cultured”
Line 117-118: “uninoculated Petri dishes were used as control blanks to prevent contamination”. – this should be rephrased slightly – the controls don’t “prevent” contamination, they are used to identify it. Perhaps rephrase this simply to state “the uninoculated Petri dishes were used as negative controls” or similar.
Line 126: units are missing for the Green Taq Mix.
Line 127: please include the concentration of the primers.
Line 130: “step elongation” should be “elongation step”
Line 130: If the PCR success was confirmed using gel electrophoresis, this should be mentioned here.
Line 162: Please include more detail in this figure legend, specifically what is being represented by graphs a, b, c, d, e, f.
Line 167-168: Genus names should be italicised.
Line 186: degree symbol is not present.
Line 235-237: the authors state that there were 12 genera, but have only listed 11. Either the 12 is a typo and should be 11, or there is one genus missing from the list.
Line 264: “genus was” should be “genera were”
There are a few inconsistencies in the manuscript with spacing between numbers and SI units.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article by Mao Tian with co-authors is devoted to the description of the assessment of the microbial diversity of samples found on the territory of the Chinese Altai. The authors identified more than 900 cultivated harmful substances and assessed their diversity and confirmed their biotechnological significance.
In general, in terms of topics and presented results, the article corresponds to the profile of the journal Biodiversity. I have only a few small comments.
Line 77: Was it the same altitude: 2680, 2680?
Line 79: it should be the space between number and unit, “2m”
Line 276 “rivuli” should be italic
All Latin names should be in italics, including those in the bibliography.
There is no need to add dot between word "Table" and the number (Figure. 5; Figure. 2 etc.).
The article may be published after corrections have been made.
In addition, the authors provide links to additional materials (Tables S1-S3), but I did not find a link to these materials on the site. They are also absent from the text of the article.
I rated the item "Scientific Soundness" low as I couldn't find additional material. Although it can be assumed that the authors will present all the claimed material further
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
