Integrative Taxonomy of Metarhabditis Associated with Parasitic Otitis in Dairy Cattle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript re-described three known species of the genus Metarhabditis: M. costai, M. freitasi and M. blumi. However, the morphology and morphometry of the population named as M. blumi does not agree with the type description of the species, this having longer female tail, apparently it is not this species. However, line drawings are not provided for this species, which should be included in the MS to corroborate the nematode identity. If the species is only compared with the sequences submitted to GenBank but not with morphological and morphometrical data, an error is reached, because the first specimen sequenced and submitted to GenBank was incorrectly identified and that error has currently grown like a snowball. According to this, the identity of this material should be carefully revised.

With respect to the descriptions, the word "esophagus" is used. This term is incorrect in nematodes and the term "pharynx" should be used instead. Nematodes does not have "esophagus" (which was used by older nematologists). Esophagus is a simple tube connecting buccal cavity and stomach, but in nematodes appears a muscular structure agreeing with the term "pharynx". Thus, the term "esophagus" must be replaced by "pharynx".

Measurement tables should be included as main tables and not as material supplementary.

In the phylogenetic tree, "Oscheius" appears as outgroup, but it is a evolved group into the family Rhabditidae. The species "nidrosiensis" and "remanei" are not currently "Rhabditis". This shoud be emended.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: taxonomy-3015574

Response to Reviewers

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 1

 

The manuscript re-described three known species of the genus Metarhabditis: M. costai, M. freitasi and M. blumi. However, the morphology and morphometry of the population named as M. blumi does not agree with the type description of the species, this having longer female tail, apparently it is not this species. However, line drawings are not provided for this species, which should be included in the MS to corroborate the nematode identity. If the species is only compared with the sequences submitted to GenBank but not with morphological and morphometrical data, an error is reached, because the first specimen sequenced and submitted to GenBank was incorrectly identified and that error has currently grown like a snowball. According to this, the identity of this material should be carefully revised.

 

Answer: Thank you for your valuable observation. We have a deep respect for your expertise on this matter. Our M. blumi sample was obtained from the original strain provided by the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC). We are aware that in vitro cultivation can introduce morphological changes in nematodes.

 

We conducted a careful revision of the morphological and morphometric data, ensuring that all measurements, despite differences, are proportional to the original description of the species. In agreement with the reviewer's suggestion, we have included a line drawing of both the male and female M. blumi in the manuscript to corroborate the nematode's identity.

 

By incorporating these illustrations, we aim to provide a clearer comparison and reinforce the accuracy of our identification. This careful approach ensures that any potential discrepancies due to in vitro cultivation or previous GenBank submissions are thoroughly addressed.

 

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback, which has significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

 

With respect to the descriptions, the word "esophagus" is used. This term is incorrect in nematodes and the term "pharynx" should be used instead. Nematodes does not have "esophagus" (which was used by older nematologists). Esophagus is a simple tube connecting buccal cavity and stomach, but in nematodes appears a muscular structure agreeing with the term "pharynx". Thus, the term "esophagus" must be replaced by "pharynx".

 

Answer: Thank you, the correction has been made.

 

Measurement tables should be included as main tables and not as material supplementary.

 

Answer: Thank you for your considerations. The text has been adjusted, and the tables have been included in the paper's structure.

 

 

In the phylogenetic tree, "Oscheius" appears as outgroup, but it is a evolved group into the family Rhabditidae. The species "nidrosiensis" and "remanei" are not currently "Rhabditis". This shoud be emended.

 

Answer: Thank you for the careful evaluation. The Oscheius and Rhabditis nidrosiensis sequences have been removed. We have included the Heterorhabditis genus as an outgroup. The new Figure 17 has been modified as suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a detailed study of the taxonomy of the Metarhabditis genus associated with parasitic otitis in dairy cattle. The research is well-structured and provides significant insights into the morphological and molecular characteristics of Metarhabditis species. The discussion effectively interprets the results and places them in the context of existing literature. I would accept it in its current form, but the authors should change the size of Figure 16, it might be a bit bigger. Moreover, the font is extreamly small.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: taxonomy-3015574

Response to Reviewers

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 2

 

The manuscript presents a detailed study of the taxonomy of the Metarhabditis genus associated with parasitic otitis in dairy cattle. The research is well-structured and provides significant insights into the morphological and molecular characteristics of Metarhabditis species. The discussion effectively interprets the results and places them in the context of existing literature. I would accept it in its current form, but the authors should change the size of Figure 16, it might be a bit bigger. Moreover, the font is extreamly small.

 

Answer: Thank you for the observation and helpful comments. We are sure that all the changes were extremely useful in increasing the paper's impact. The new Figure 17 has been modified as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' study deals with the Metarhabditis nematodes that cause bovine parasitic otitis in Brasil to identify morphological differences between three species of this genus and obtain new molecular data. The author’s undoubted merit is the combined use of morphological and molecular research methods, which allows for the reliable identification of these parasitic nematodes. Using SEM further improves the quality of work and allows us identified new structural features of the nematodes studied. The article is well illustrated; its theme is relevant to the Taxonomy.

The well-conducted study has excellent illustrations. The article is of undoubted interest. My congratulations to the authors.

 

I have only a few comments, which will undoubtedly improve the manuscript.

1. Nematode measurements are given in supplementary tables S1 and S2, therefore, measurements are not necessary in the text of the manuscript (in descriptions)

2. Why were females of the two species (Metarhabditis costai и Metarhabditis sp.) not included in the morphological study? Couldn't find them? then their general descriptions are not required, but only descriptions of males are given

3. In sections 2.3. and 2.4 the total number of nematodes selected for the study is indicated. Why is it not written down how many specimens were taken by species of nematode and by their gender? In section 2.1. the number of nematodes participating in the study is not indicated at all.

4. It is necessary to slightly change the names of all figures, because in their current form they are incorrect. For example: Figure 2. LM of Metarhabditis costai, male. (A) whole body, ….

And I wouldn’t write the words “line drawing” at all. And it’s clear that this is a drawing and not a photo J For example: Figure 1. Metarhabditis costai, male. (A) whole body, lateral view;…

5. The Authors should adhere to uniformity in the text of the manuscript:

a)In the title section 2.3. the name is abbreviated (SEM), and in 2.2. LM – no.

b) Section 3.1.3. – lines 316,321 - The species name does not need to be given here. Do as in 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 -  Females ….  Males…..

c) Section 3.1.2. – lines 249,253 – based on 10 specimens

6.Lines 27,28 – This information is more appropriate in the Introduction than in the Abstract. Moreover, it is not customary to provide references in the Abstract.

7. figure 16 is too small. It needs to be changed.

8. According International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) at the first mention of species or genus (as in lines 71, 73, 83, 89, 90, etc.) its full Latin name with the author and year of description should be given; in relation all species.

9. Line 387 – SEM.

10.  line 440 - A sentence cannot begin with an abbreviation. In such cases, the generic name is written in full.

11. line 443 – Martins [25]

In conclusion, I express my opinion – the manuscript can be published in Taxonomy, but some corrections are needed.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: taxonomy-3015574

Response to Reviewers

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 3

 

The authors' study deals with the Metarhabditis nematodes that cause bovine parasitic otitis in Brasil to identify morphological differences between three species of this genus and obtain new molecular data. The author’s undoubted merit is the combined use of morphological and molecular research methods, which allows for the reliable identification of these parasitic nematodes. Using SEM further improves the quality of work and allows us identified new structural features of the nematodes studied. The article is well illustrated; its theme is relevant to the Taxonomy.

 

The well-conducted study has excellent illustrations. The article is of undoubted interest. My congratulations to the authors.

 

I have only a few comments, which will undoubtedly improve the manuscript.

 

Thank you for the observation and helpful comments. We are sure that all the changes were extremely useful in increasing the paper's impact.

 

1. Nematode measurements are given in supplementary tables S1 and S2, therefore, measurements are not necessary in the text of the manuscript (in descriptions)

 

Answer: We have decided to retain the measurements in the text to adhere to the standard format of taxonomic papers. We believe this approach will assist future readers in easily locating the morphometric details associated with the text description.

 

2. Why were females of the two species (Metarhabditis costaie Metarhabditissp.) not included in the morphological study? Couldn't find them? then their general descriptions are not required, but only descriptions of males are given.

 

Answer: Thank you for your question. The decision to exclude females of Metarhabditis costai and Metarhabditis sp. from the morphological study was due to the difficulty in associating their morphological and morphometric specificities. Unlike M. freitasi, where the previous region shows similarities between males and females, we found it challenging to accurately associate the females of M. costai and Metarhabditis sp. with their males. We hope that our data will assist in the identification of these species in subsequent studies.

 

 

3. In sections 2.3. and 2.4 the total number of nematodes selected for the study is indicated. Why is it not written down how many specimens were taken by species of nematode and by their gender? In section 2.1. the number of nematodes participating in the study is not indicated at all.

 

Answer: The quantities of the total nematodes measured were easily calculated and included in the paper. However, determining the total number of worms collected from each cattle is very difficult. We have approximately 6 nematodes in 10 µL of exudate collected per animal.

 

 

 

4. It is necessary to slightly change the names of all figures, because in their current form they are incorrect. For example: Figure 2. LM of Metarhabditis costai, male. (A) whole body, ….

 

And I wouldn’t write the words “line drawing” at all. And it’s clear that this is a drawing and not a photo J For example: Figure 1. Metarhabditis costai, male. (A) whole body, lateral view;…

 

Answer: Thanks for the suggestions, the text of the article has been adjusted.

 

 

5. The Authors should adhere to uniformity in the text of the manuscript:

 

a)In the title section 2.3. the name is abbreviated (SEM), and in 2.2. LM – no.

 

3. b) Section 3.1.3. – lines 316,321 - The species name does not need to be given here. Do as in 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 -  Females ….  Males…..

 

3. c) Section 3.1.2. – lines 249,253 – based on 10 specimens

 

Answer: Thank you for your precision, the text has been adjusted.

 

 

6.Lines 27,28 – This information is more appropriate in the Introduction than in the Abstract. Moreover, it is not customary to provide references in the Abstract.

 

Answer: Information has been moved from Summary to Introduction. 

 

 

7. figure 16 is too small. It needs to be changed.

 

Answer: Thanks for the observation. The new figure 17 was modified as suggested.

 

 

8. According International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) at the first mention of species or genus (as in lines 71, 73, 83, 89, 90, etc.) its full Latin name with the author and year of description should be given; in relation all species.

 

9. Line 387 – SEM.

 

 

 

10. line 440 - A sentence cannot begin with an abbreviation. In such cases, the generic name is written in full.

 

11. line 443 – Martins [25]

 

Answer: Thank you again, all the information was very useful in improving the article and has been adjusted or fixed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS includes the corrections and suggestions. It is acceptable now.