Download Create a block letter.

Fisheries
and Oceans
Pêches
et Océans
Pacific Region
August 30, 2016
Dr. Michael V. K. Sukhdeo
Editor, Journal of Parasitology
Dept. Ecology, Evolution and Notural Resources
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
Dear Dr. Sukhdeo:
Subject:
Journal of Parasitology MS 16-24R1
Please find enclosed a revised manuscript (and accompanying files) entitled: “Two novel
microsporidia in skeletal muscle of pike-perch Sander lucioperca and burbot Lota lota in
Finland”. We have further modified the text as suggested by comments from the editor
and a reviewer, and as itemized on the following pages.
On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to acknowledge the effort made by the editorial
staff and reviewers to improve this manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Simon R.M. Jones
Pacific Biological Station
-2-
Associate Editor comments:
The revised version of the manuscript addressed most of the reviewer’s concerns and is
much improved.
I agree with the reviewer that making it very clear the measurements were based on
TEM is important in the abstract, methods and results. In the abstract, this could go at
the end of the sentence on line 11 (“...wide, based on transmission electron microscopy
sections.”). In the results, “.., based on TEM” can follow the reported measurements on
lines 119 and169.
Changes have been made as suggested (lines 10, 11, 18, 118, 121, 167)
I also agree with the reviewer’s second comment that some broader ecological context
would benefit the paper. In the last paragraph, the impacts of other microsporidia are
mentioned. What impacts, if any, would be expected from these new species? In the
Intro, the authors mention that microsporidian infections can degrade host
musculature. Is that expected here? The TEM work revealed some host response. Would
that lead to tissue damage? Just a little more context would be good to bring this all
together.
A broader ecological context is now discussed in the last paragraph (line 249 – 266). The
sentence refered to in the introduction has been relocated to this part of the discussion.
Reviewer #2: The manuscript is significantly improved following this revision and the
authors have addressed the majority of comments. I only have two minor comments
for the manuscript.
One comment is again in regards to the spore sizes being based on TEM measurements.
The authors have stated in the Materials and Methods under the electron microscopy
section that microsporidian dimensions were made from ultrathin sections viewed in
electron micrographs. This can easily be overlooked when reading the MS. It is known
that sizes of spores are affected by tissue processing, particularly TEM processing.
Considering that spore size is an important morphological criterion for microsporidia
and that future readers of this paper will be comparing the sizes of different
microsporidian species, it would benefit to clearly state that measurements were from
TEM directly when the measurements are stated. This is particularly important in the
abstract since the measurements are stated with no reference to this. It would be
important to simply write "based on measurements made from TEM" after stating the
measurements for each species in the abstract. This will be very helpful to future
taxonomists reviewing the morphology of these new species. Additionally authors
should consider stating this in the Diagnosis section after mention of spore dimensions
in the species description.
Changes have been made (see above)
-3-
The second comment is in reference to the ecological context of the parasites in these
fish species. Journal of Parasitology is avoiding direct species descriptions unless they
have an important ecological context. The authors have added a few sentences in the
Introduction to remedy this, including some catch numbers of both fish species and that
parasite infections can degrade appearance of the musculature. This helps, but
discussing the ecological context beyond stating catch numbers would strongly benefit
the manuscript. The Discussion section includes only morphological aspects of the
microsporidia. It would benefit to include a paragraph discussing the ecological context.
For example, based on the results and infection intensities do the authors believe that
these parasites will have an impact on the musculature of the fish (from the perspective
of fisherman)? Health of the fish? Do closely related microsporidian species cause
problems in musculature of the fish?
Heterosporis is known to cause unsightly lesions in the musculature making the filets of
heavily infected fish unusable. Have fisherman or others noticed these infections as
problematic in the fish? Maybe compare these new species to other parasites from this
perspective. Also any information on biology of the fish, transmission dynamics of
microsporidia, and how these may interact. These are just some ideas on what could be
included from an ecological perspective to help discuss the importance of these
parasites.
A paragraph describing a the broader ecological context of our findings has been
included in the discussion