New Records of Tetraselmis sp. Strains with Biotechnological Potential Isolated from Greek Coastal Lagoons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors in their work considered the current topic of studying the composition of the microalgae Tetraselmis. Modern methods of taxonometric analysis of microalgae strain isolation were used in the work. Biochemical potential of microalgae (antioxidant activity, carbohydrates, fatty acid composition, pigment content, etc.) Kinetic curves of microalgae growth were obtained.

This study once again proves the great potential of microalgae. The wide application of these cultures in pharmacology, medicine, agriculture, cosmetology and other fields.

References sources are cited appropriately. I would like to make a recommendation to the authors on the layout of the references.   It is necessary to follow the recommendations of the journal. The article is recommended for publication in the journal after minor corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review the manuscript and for your comments and suggestions. Regarding your recommendations on the layout of the “References” section, we would like to inform you that we have followed the official format and instructions of the journal. Additionally, we looked through the references again and we did not detect any mistakes or issues with the format; if you have detected any specific issues please let us know and we will take care of them.

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

In the pursuit of sustainable sources for food, energy and health products, microalgae 14 have gained attention. The manuscript isolated two new Tetraselmis sp. strains, and characterized their biochemical properties. The manuscript was written well. I have only a few suggestions:

1. In figure 7, pleased added the species name, not only the No.

2. In figure 8, there is a slight difference in the initial inoculation amount between the two algae species. 

3. Significant difference analysis should be conducted between the two algae species in Tables 3 and 4， and data with significant differences should be annotated. 

4. The sampling time of all the figures and tables is unclear, and this data should be provided clearly.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to kindly thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and the appropriate corrections have been made. More specifically:

1. In figure 7, pleased added the species name, not only the No.

The abbreviated strain names have been added to the tree and the full species names have been added to the legend. 

2. In figure 8, there is a slight difference in the initial inoculation amount between the two algae species. 

The inocula of the two strains came from different cultures, so it is impossible to have the exact same amount of initial cells for both cultures.

3. Significant difference analysis should be conducted between the two algae species in Tables 3 and 4 and data with significant differences should be annotated. 

The necessary annotations have been added to both Tables (Table 4 and Table 5, after correction).

4. The sampling time of all the figures and tables is unclear, and this data should be provided clearly.

Sampling time has been added in Figure 2 and Figure 4 and in Table 4 and Table 5.

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is oriented towards interesting topic and is well grounded with morphological, cultural, biochemical and genetic studies. Some suggetsions to the authors are provided below.

Lines 16-17: "Two new Tetraselmis sp. strains" - suggestion: "Two new srains of Tetraselmis" since they were identified

lines 20-21: ". The studied strains were identified as representatives of the species Tetraselmis verrucosa f. rubens." - Since authors doscuss a form, using of species in this case is not correct. Suggestion: The studied strains were identified as representatives of Tetraselmis verrucosa f. rubens."

Line 82: "ling" ?

Line 323: Stein instead of STEIN

Line 422: "Tetraselmis Stein, 1878" according to the ICNAFP should be "Tetraselmis Stein 1878"

line 424: "Tetraselmis Stein, 1878"according to the ICNAFP should be "Tetraselmis Stein 1878"

line 425: " Norris. Chihara, 1983" sgould be " Norris & Chihara 1983" or  "Norris et Chihara 1983" 

Line 442: Tetraselmis rubens is currently regarded as a synonym of Tetraselmis verrucosus f. rubens and this has to be noted in the text since not all the readers are familiar with algal taxonomy

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to kindly thank you for taking the time to read and review the manuscript. After taking your comments and suggestions into consideration the necessary corrections have been made to the manuscript. In particular:

Lines 16-17: "Two new Tetraselmis sp. strains" - suggestion: "Two new srains of Tetraselmis" since they were identified

Corrected.

lines 20-21: ". The studied strains were identified as representatives of the species Tetraselmis verrucosa f. rubens." - Since authors doscuss a form, using of species in this case is not correct. Suggestion: The studied strains were identified as representatives of Tetraselmis verrucosa f. rubens."

Corrected. 

Line 82: "ling" ?

This was a typing error and it has been corrected.

Line 323: Stein instead of STEIN

Corrected.

Line 422: "Tetraselmis Stein, 1878" according to the ICNAFP should be "Tetraselmis Stein 1878"

line 424: "Tetraselmis Stein, 1878"according to the ICNAFP should be "Tetraselmis Stein 1878"

line 425: " Norris. Chihara, 1983" sgould be " Norris & Chihara 1983" or  "Norris et Chihara 1983" 

Corrected.

Line 442: Tetraselmis rubens is currently regarded as a synonym of Tetraselmis verrucosus f. rubens and this has to be noted in the text since not all the readers are familiar with algal taxonomy

This was already noted in the text (line 458), however, the phrasing has been modified in order to make it more clear.

Kind regards,

The authors