Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 31, 2021

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Vijai Kumar Gupta, Editor

PONE-D-21-10682

Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pogliano,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following minor revision. Also, kindly check English, grammar and sentence structure throughout the manuscript before submission of the revised version of the paper to PLOS One.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vijai Gupta, PhD in Microbiology

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“These studies were supported by grants from the National Institute of Health AI113295 GM104556, and GM129245.  KP and JP have an equity interest in Linnaeus Bioscience Incorporated, and receive consulting income from the company. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California, San Diego in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“These studies were supported by grants from the National Institute of Health AI113295 GM104556, and GM129245.  KP and JP have an equity interest in Linnaeus Bioscience Incorporated, and receive consulting income from the company. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California, San Diego in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figures 3 & 6 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following minor revision. Also, kindly check English, grammar and sentence structure throughout the manuscript before submission of the revised version of the paper to PLOS One.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the paper entitled “Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces

strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals”, Pogliano and co-workers describe the isolation of 8 novel strains of Streptomyces, identification of strains that likely produce antibiotics, and proposals of their mechanisms of action using bacterial cytological profiling. Addtionally, 4 novel actinobacteriaphage were characterized

Major concerns:

It is generally quite challenging to determine the species of Streptomyces based solely on the 16s rRNA sequencing. Typically, it is better practice to sequence several housekeeping genes (see Antonie van Leeuwenhoek volume 110, pages563–583 (2017) for more details). It would be useful to do this to determine the likely species that these new Streptomyces are.

Why was neighbor joining chosen for the phylogenetic tree? It seems that a maximum likelihood tree might make more sense? This is not a huge dataset so a maximum likelihood tree should be doable.

Minor concerns:

Figures 7 is a little blurry/difficult to read.

The transition from talking about antibiotics to bacteriophage is a little sudden. Almost feels like they could be 2 different papers.

Reviewer #2: Montaño et al. manuscript entitled "Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals", Comments given below:

1. Authors should include the future prospectus or outlooks in the manuscript. In reference to which microbes have better performance.

2. In the manuscript microbes name (as Bionomial nomenclature) should be in italics. Please check Table 1 and in the manuscript.

3. In the manuscript lots of tables and figures with same data. So, authors should keep some tables/figs in supplementary.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ram Prasad

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Response to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: In the paper entitled “Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals”, Pogliano and co-workers describe the isolation of 8 novel strains of Streptomyces, identification of strains that likely produce antibiotics, and proposals of their mechanisms of action using bacterial cytological profiling. Additionally, 4 novel actinobacteriaphage were characterized.

Major concerns:

1. It is generally quite challenging to determine the species of Streptomyces based solely on the 16s rRNA sequencing. Typically, it is better practice to sequence several housekeeping genes (see Antonie van Leeuwenhoek volume 110, pages563–583 (2017) for more details). It would be useful to do this to determine the likely species that these new Streptomyces are.

Response: While we agree about the best practices for generating phylogenetic trees for determining species level taxonomy, here we are only interested in assigning these strains at the genus level. We sequenced the 16S rRNA genes from the eight soil bacterial isolates to confirm the genus of each was indeed Streptomyces. Therefore, we believe the 16S rRNA sequence is sufficient for our purposes. We did change the legend to more accurately describe our intentions of generating a genus level phylogenetic tree.

2. Why was neighbor joining chosen for the phylogenetic tree? It seems that a maximum likelihood tree might make more sense? This is not a huge dataset so a maximum likelihood tree should be doable.

Response: We agree that a maximum likelihood tree is a better representation of the genus level phylogeny among the bacterial isolates and have generated a new tree using maximum likelihood to replace Figure 1.

Minor concerns:

1. Figure 7 is a little blurry/difficult to read.

Response: We uploaded our figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool and have generated a high-quality figure to replace the blurred version.

2. The transition from talking about antibiotics to bacteriophage is a little sudden. Almost feels like they could be 2 different papers.

Response: We have added an additional sentence to clarify the rationale for isolating bacteriophage capable of infecting these Streptomyces strains for the purpose of genetically manipulating BGCs for natural product discovery.

Reviewer #2: Montaño et al. manuscript entitled "Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals", Comments given below:

1. Authors should include the future prospectus or outlooks in the manuscript. In reference to which microbes have better performance.

Response: We have included a section in the conclusions section to include future prospects, specifically noting the microbes of greatest potential for antibiotic discovery.

2. In the manuscript microbes name (as Bionomial nomenclature) should be in italics. Please check Table 1 and in the manuscript.

Response: We have made this correction.

3. In the manuscript lots of tables and figures with same data. So, authors should keep some tables/figs in supplementary.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that there a large number of tables and figures, but since they are the main sources of data, we believe they belong in the main body of the manuscript where the information can be quickly accessed by the reader. While there is generally no redundancy between the tables, we note that there is a small amount of overlap between Figure 2, which shows the extent of killing of lab strains of E. coli and Bacillus by strains DF, SFW, QF2 and JS on two different media, and Table 6, which both reports whether or not these strains are able to kill clinical isolates of Gram-negative (Pseudomonas PA01 and P4) and Gram-positive pathogens (MRSA). The data for the lab strains of E. coli and Bacillus are intentionally included in both tables for reference.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Vijai Kumar Gupta, Editor

Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals

PONE-D-21-10682R1

Dear Dr. Pogliano,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vijai Kumar Gupta, PhD in Microbiology

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors have answered the questions raised by the reviewers and have modified the manuscript as suggested. The manuscript, in its present form, can be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vijai Kumar Gupta, Editor

PONE-D-21-10682R1

Isolation and characterization of Streptomyces bacteriophages and Streptomyces strains encoding biosynthetic arsenals

Dear Dr. Pogliano:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vijai Kumar Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .