Review Reports

Reviewer 1

Number

Line

Comment

Corrections/Authors comments

The importance of the Ribosomal DNA sequence-based taxonomy was not well described and thus the introduction was not fit very well with the title of the manuscript. The connection of the Ribosomal DNA sequence-based taxonomy  within the manuscript was not found

This has been addressed in the discussion and we have also cited a paper we recently published using ribosomal DNA as well across species of microalgae.

The connecttion

Added in introduction:

Traditional methods to assess microalgal diversity from coastal environment relied mostly on traditional microscopy methods. However given the problems arising from phenotypic plasticity and cultural variation, there has been a need to incorporate use of DNA sequence data. The latter, especially ribosomal DNA, has been widely used, not only across microalgae but among a wide range of microorganisms

Need one sentence of the introduction (at the beginning)  in the abstract

Added one sentence in the introduction

The novelty of the manuscript was not well explain

The novelty is that this is first species being isolated and characterised based on sequence data in this region. In addition its antimicrobial properties are also elucidated which brings forward novelty in our findings as well.

The diameter of zone inhibition from negative control were not shown in Table 1 and  2.

Included sentence:

“While the negative control produced no observable zones.”

The inhibition of the positive control was not mention in table 2 as well

The table has been revised to include the information.

Reviewer 2

Number

Line

Comment

Corrections/Authors comments

Line 32

of what?? Potentially of interest for the pharmaceutical industry

We corrected this:

From:

“with potential for application in a number of traditional and emerging fields”

To:

“of potential interest to the pharmaceutical industry”

Lines 54,56,58,59, 61-67

Figs 1a, c, f is not providing  taxonomic information

Nucleus position should be indicated, where is it in Fig. 1b

Lines:

54, 56,58, 59

Figure 1: updated.

Caption:

Figure 1

Figure 2a-b is not clear, did not clearly show species characters.

Figure must be approved

Updated

Unfortunately, that the only micrographs we are having.

Notes in figure is very small, unclear. Need to approve

Figure 3: updated.

Line 102

Figure4: Scale bars should be bigger, 1µm is very small for cell size (appr. 30 µm)

Scale bars are based on the SEM micrographs. Original micrographs are herein provided.

Line 126

Figure 5: GB access number shoul be add after strain name, ISOP40

GB numbers included in caption

Line 142

Figure 6: Same as above

GB number included in caption

Line 242-249

THIS APPEARS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION OF THIS MS – BUT WITHOUT REFERENCES ??!! THERE ARE PRESUMABLY FEW STUDIES FOR COMPARISON – IF ANY, THESE STUDIES SHOULD BE INCLUDED HERE AND IN CASE THERE ARE NO PREVIOUS STUDIES WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO CITE THERE, THIS SHOULD BE MENTIONED

This has been revised. We have included a paragraph to substantiate this. The paragraph has been highlighted in the discussion.

Line 297

Pls add the strain number after acces. number, eg OQ352631 (strain P29), so on with others

Included strain numbers

Line 385

No graphs were found in result section

From:

“…graphs were generated using…”

To:

“…tabulated…”