Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246533

Proposal of Lentzea deserti (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 and an emended description of Lentzea atacamensis

Mo Ping 1, Zhao Yun-Lin 1,*, Liu Jun 1, Gao Jian 2, Xu Zheng-Gang 1,3,*
Editor: Feng ZHANG4
PMCID: PMC7861442  PMID: 33539471

Abstract

The taxonomic relationship of Lentzea atacamensis and Lentzea deserti were re-evaluated using comparative genome analysis. The 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis indicated that the type strains of L. atacamensis and L. deserti shared 99.7% sequence similarity. The digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values between the genomes of two type strains were 88.6% and 98.8%, respectively, greater than the two recognized thresholds values of 70% dDDH and 95–96% ANI for bacterial species delineation. These results suggested that L. atacamensis and L. deserti should share the same taxonomic position. And this conclusion was further supported by similar phenotypic and chemotaxonomic features between them. Therefore, we propose that L. deserti is a later heterotypic synonym of L. atacamensis.

Introduction

The genus Lentzea was proposed by Yassin et al. in 1995 [1] and was subsequently emended by Lee et al. [2] and Fang et al. [3]. The strains of this genus form abundant aerial hyphae that fragment into rod-shaped elements. Whole-cell hydrolysates contain meso-diaminopimelic acid as diagnostic diamino acid and MK-9 (H4) was the predominant menaquinone; The G+C content of genomic DNA ranges from 64.1 to 71.0 mol%. According to the List of LPSN (https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/lentzea), there are currently over 20 species of the genus Lentzea with validly published names. Lentzea species are distributed in different habitats, such as human pathological tissue [1], an equine placenta [4], a limestone [5] and different soils [68]. As separate genomic species, Lechevalieria atacamensis and Lechevalieria deserti were isolated from hyperarid soils of the Atacama Desert and proposed in 2010 as two validly named species based on a polyphasic taxonomic approach [9]. In 2018, Lechevalieria atacamensis and Lechevalieria deserti were transferred to the genus Lentzea from the genus Lechevalieria based on comparative genome analysis [10]. However, our research showed that the two species belong to the same genome species. The aim of the present study was to clarify the relationship between the type strains of L. atacamensis and L. deserti based on genomic and associated phenotypic data.

Materials and methods

Phenotypic characterization

L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T (= C61T = DSM 45479T) and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T (= C68T = DSM 45480T), were purchased from the CGMCC (China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center). The cultural properties of L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T were observed on various media including Gause’s synthetic No. 1 medium [11] and ISP 2–7 media as described by Shirling and Gottlieb [12]. The color of aerial hyphae, substrate mycelia and soluble pigments were determined by the Color Standards and Color Nomenclature [13]. Growth at different temperature, pH range and NaCl tolerance was tested on ISP2 agar medium for 14 days according to the method described in the literature [12]. Carbon source utilization tests and enzyme activities were performed using the Biolog GEN III MicroPlates (Biolog, USA) and API ZYM system (bioMérieux, France) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Other biochemical tests such as hydrolysis of aesculin, starch and urea, hydrogen sulfide production and nitrate reduction, etc. were carried out according to the methods described by Xu et al. [14]. The isomer of diaminopimelic acid and sugar analysis of whole-cell hydrolysates were performed according to the procedures described by Hasegawa et al. [15] and Lechevalier and Lechevalier [16]. Menaquinones were extracted according to the method of Collins et al. [17] and analyzed by HPLC [18]. The experiments were carried out in triplicate. Whole genome sequences of the type strains of L. atacamensis and L. deserti are available from the GenBank database. Their genomic data such as GenBank assembly accessions, genomic lengths, number of contigs, contig N50 and DNA G+C contents, etc., are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Genomic data of L. atacamensis DSM 45479T (= CGMCC 4.5536T = C61T) and L. deserti DSM 45480T (= CGMCC 4.5535T = C68T).

Strain L. deserti DSM 45480T L. atacamensis DSM 45479T
Assembly accession GCA_003148865.1 GCA_003269295.1
Genome size (bp) 9,529,573 9,306,230
No. of contigs 50 38
Contig N50 (bp) 442,485 785,641
G+C content (mol%) 68.8 68.9
Protein coding genes 9221 9075
RNA genes 86 90
    rRNA genes 8 12
        5S rRNA 6 6
        16S rRNA 1 5
        23S rRNA 1 1
    tRNA genes 70 70
    Other RNA genes 8 8
Protein coding genes with function prediction 6780 6635
without function prediction 2441 2440
Protein coding genes with enzymes 1589 1569

Phylogenetic analysis and genomic DNA-DNA correlation analysis

The phylogenetic analysis of L. atacamensis C61T and L. deserti C68T was carried out using the Type (Strain) Genome Server (https://tygs.dsmz.de/) [19]. The average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis was used for evaluating the genetic relationship between L. atacamensis C61T and L. deserti C68T by using the orthoANIu algorithm and an online ANI calculator (www.ezbiocloud.net/tools/ani) [20, 21]. At the same time, the digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) value between two genome sequences was calculated by the online Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (http://ggdc.dsmz.de/distcalc2.php) [22].

Results and discussion

The phylogenomic analysis showed that L. deserti C68T was most closely related to L. atacamensis C61T (Fig 1), confirming that they should belong to the same genomic species. This result further suggested that the phylogenetic analysis based on whole genome sequences exhibited better resolution than the phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequence [23]. ANI analysis indicated that L. atacamensis C61T and L. deserti C68T exhibited 98.8% ANI value, greater than the 95–96% threshold for species demarcation [24], confirming that they have the same taxonomic position. Meanwhile, L. atacamensis C61T and L. deserti C68T had an 88.6% dDDH value, greater than the 70% threshold for species demarcation, confirming that they belong to the same species [25]. In addition, comparative phenotypic characteristics of L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T are presented in Table 2 and S1 Fig. As shown in Table 1 and S1 Fig, most features between them were almost identical. For example, they were produced white aerial mycelium on ISP 3, ISP 4 and ISP 5. In Biolog GENIII test, positive for growth on acetoacetic acid, acetic acid, acid Methyl Ester, aztreonam, etc.; And negative for growth on d-aspartic acid, d-fructose-6-PO4, d-fucose etc. They both contained meso-DAP in the cell-wall, and galactose, mannose and rhamnose as the whole-cell sugar. The major menaquinones of strains consisted of MK-9 (H4) (Table 1). At the same time, the genomes size of strain L. atacamensis DSM 45479T is 9,306,230 bp in 38 of contigs. 9075 protein coding genes, 90 rRNA genes, 6635 protein coding genes, 2440 without function prediction and 1569 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted. While the genomes size of strain L. deserti DSM 45480T is 9,529,573 bp in 50 of contigs. 9221 protein coding genes, 86 rRNA genes, 6780 protein coding genes, 2442 without function prediction and 1589 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted (Table 2). Consequently, we propose that L. deserti C68T is a later heterotypic synonym of L. atacamensis C61T based on the results above and rule 42 of the Bacteriological Code [26].

Fig 1. Phylogenetic tree based on whole genome sequences of L. atacamensis DSM 45479T, L. deserti DSM 45480T and related reference strains.

Fig 1

Tree inferred with FastME 2.1.6.1 [27] from GBDP distances calculated from genome sequences. The branch lengths are scaled in terms of GBDP distance formula d5. The numbers above branches are GBDP pseudo-bootstrap support values >60% from 100 replications, with an average branch support of 96.0%. The tree was rooted at the midpoint [28].

Table 2. Phenotypic characteristics between L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T.

Characteristic 1 2
Aerial mycelium on Gause’s synthetic No. 1 TB TB
Aerial mycelium on ISP 2 AY WAAY
Aerial mycelium on ISP 3, 4 and 5 WH WH
Substrate mycelium on ISP 2, 3, 4 and 5 YO YO
Melanin or diffusible pigments on ISP 6 and 7
aAcid production from:
    Adonitol, erythritol, melezitose, methyl, α-d-glucoside +
    Inulin, lactose, mannitol, mannose, rhamnose, salicin, trehalose + +
API ZYM test
    Acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, cystine arylamidase, esterase (C4) + +
    Esterase lipase (C8), trypsin, leucine arylamidase, lipase (C14) + +
    N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, valine arylamidase, α-chymotrypsin, α-mannosidase + +
    α-galactosidase, α-glucosidase, β-galactosidase, β-glucosidase + +
naphtol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase, β-glucuronidase W W
    α-fucosidase
BiologGEN III test
    Acetoacetic acid, acetic acid, aztreonam, bromo-succinic acid, d-arabitol, d-cellobiose, dextrin, d-fructose, d-galactose, d-gluconic acid, d-glucuronic acid, d-lactic acid, d-maltose, d-mannitol, d-mannose, d-melibiose, d-malic acid, d-raffinose, d-salicin, d-serine, d-trehalose, d-turanose, gentiobiose, gelatin, glycerol, glycyl-l-proline, inosine, lactate, l-fucose, myo-inositol, l-alanine, l-arginine, l-glutamic acid, l-malic acid, l-serine, l-histidine, lithium chloride, l-pyroglutamic acid, l-rhamnose, l-aspartic acid, methyl pyruvate, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine, nalidixic acid, propionic acid, sodium bromate, sucrose, stachyose, α-d-glucose, α-d-lactose, 1% sodium citric acid, Tween 40, α-keto-glutaric acid, γ-amino-butryric acid, β-hydroxy-d, l-butyric acid. + +
    d-aspartic acid, d-fructose-6-PO4, d-fucose, d-serine, d-sorbitol, formic acid, l-galactonic acid lactone, l-lactic acid, minocycline, N-acetyl-β-d-mannosamine, N-acetyl-d-galactosamine, N-acetyl neuraminic acid, 3-methyl glucose, fusidic acid d-galacturonic acid, d-sorbitol, d-glucose-6-PO4, guanidine HCl, niaproof 4, quinic acid, d-saccharic acid, sodium butyrate, tetrazolium violet, tetrazolium blue, troleandomycin, p-hydroxy-phenylacetic acid, α-hydroxy-butyric acid, β-methyl-d-glucoside
    Lincomycin +
    Acid Methyl Ester, pectin W W
    Glucuronamide, α-keto-butyric acid + W
    Mucic acid, vancomycin W
    Potassium tellurite W +
Hydrolysis of starch, aesculin and allantoin + +
H2S production, nitrate reduction and urea hydrolysis
a Decomposition of: arbutin, uric acid +
a Decomposition of: casein, elastin, hypoxanthine, tyrosine, xylan + +
Growth at/in: 4% NaCl (w/v), 20–40°C and pH 5.0–11.0 + +
Growth at/in: 0.1% Methyl violet (w/v)
a Major fatty acids (%)
    iso-C16:0 23.1 24.5
    C16:0 9.9 10.8
    anteiso-C15:0 9.3 9.7
    anteiso-C17:0 8.5 8.4
    iso-C15:0 6.6 7.5
    C16:1 6.5 5.8
    iso-C14:0 3.5 3.5
    iso-C17:0 1.8 2.8
    C17:0 1.5 ND
Predominant menaquinones MK-9(H4) MK-9(H4)
Cell-wall diamino acid mes-DAP mes-DAP
Whole-cell sugars G, M, R G, M, R

Note:

a, data are from Okoro et al. [9].

Note: 1, L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T; 2, L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T. All data are from this study except where specified; +, Positive reaction;–, negative reaction; W, weak reaction; ND, Not detected; TB, Tilleul-buff; AY, Antimony yellow; YO, Yellow ocher; WAAY, White and Antimony yellow; WH, White; G, galactose; M, mannose; R, rhamnose.

Emended description of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018

The description is as before (Okoro et al. 2010 and Nouioui et al. 2018) with the following additions. Tilleul-buff aerial mycelia and olive-buff massicot yellow substrate mycelia are produced on Gause’s synthetic agar medium at 28°C for 21 days. Positive for acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, cystine arylamidase, esterase (C4), esterase lipase (C8), trypsin, leucine arylamidase, lipase (C14), N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase, naphtol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase, valine arylamidase, α-chymotrypsin, α-mannosidase, α-galactosidase, α-glucosidase, β-galactosidase, β-glucosidaseβ-glucuronidase; but negative for α-fucosidase. The cell wall contains meso-DAP. Whole-cell sugars are galactose, mannose and rhamnose. The predomiant menaquinones is MK-9 (H4). The DNA G+C content of the genome sequence, consisting of 19306230 bp, is 68.9 mol%.

The type strain is CGMCC 4.5536 (= C61 = NRRL B-24706 = JCM 17492 = DSM 45479).

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Cultural characteristics of strains in different medium after 21d of incubation at 28°C.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank MCCC (Marine Culture Collection of China) for providing excellent technical assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the State Forestry and Grassland Bureau (2018-01 to ZYL), Major Science and Technology Program of Hunan Province (2017NK1014 to ZYL), Forestry Science and Technology Project of Hunan Province (XLK201825 to ZYL), Key Technology R&D Program of Changsha (kq190114 to ZYL) and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2019JJ50027 to XZG). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Yassin AF, Rainey FA, Brzezinka H, Jahnke KD, Weissbrodt H, Budzikiewicz H, et al. Lentzea gen. nov., a New Genus of the Order Actinomycetales. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1995; 45(2): 357–363. 10.1099/00207713-45-2-357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lee SD, Kim ES, Roe JH, Kim J, Kang SO, Hah YC. Saccharothrix violacea sp. nov., isolated from a gold mine cave, and Saccharothrix albidocapillata comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000; 50(Pt3): 1315–1323. 10.1099/00207713-50-3-1315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fang B-Z, Han M-X, Liu L, Zhang Z-T, Liu W-L et al. Lentzea cavernae sp. nov., an actinobacterium isolated from a karst cave sample, and emended description of the genus Lentzea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017; 67(7): 2357–2362. 10.1099/ijsem.0.001958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Labeda DP, Hatano K, Kroppenstedt RM, Tamura T. Lentzea kentuckyensis sp. nov., of equine origin. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007; 57(Pt 8): 1780–1783. 10.1099/ijs.0.64245-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cao C, Yuan B, Qin S, Jiang J, Lian B. Lentzea pudingi sp. nov., isolated from a weathered limestone sample in a karst area. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017; 67(11): 4873–4878. 10.1099/ijsem.0.002400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li X, Zhang L, Ding Y, Gao Y, Ruan J, Huang Y. Lentzea jiangxiensis sp. nov., isolated from acidic soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012; 62(10): 2342–2346. 10.1099/ijs.0.033795-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li Dongmei, Zheng Weiwei, Zhao Junwei, Han Liyuan, Zhao Xueli, Jiang Hao, et al. Lentzea soli sp. nov., an actinomycete isolated from soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018; 68: 1496–1501. 10.1099/ijsem.0.002698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Li Dongmei, Jiang Hao, Han Liyuan, Li Yuanyuan, Zhao Junwei, Jiang Shanwen et al. Lentzea terrae sp. nov., isolated from soil and an emended description of lentzea soli. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018; 68(11): 3528–3533. 10.1099/ijsem.0.003024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Okoro CK, Bull AT, Mutreja A, Rong X, Huang Y, Goodfellow M. Lechevalieria atacamensis sp. nov., Lechevalieria deserti sp. nov., and Lechevalieria roselyniae sp. nov., isolated from hyperarid soils. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010; 60(2): 296–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nouioui I, Carro L, García-López M, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Woyke T, Kyrpides NC, et al. Genome-Based Taxonomic Classification of the Phylum Actinobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9: 1–119. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Atlas R.M., Parks L.C(editor). Handbook of microbiological media: CRC Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shirling EB, Gottlieb D. Methods for characterization of Streptomyces species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1966; 16(3): 313–340. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ridgway, R. Color standards and color nomenclature. Published by the author. Washington, DC. 1912; 1–43.
  • 14.Xu LH, Li WJ, Liu ZH, Jiang CL. Actinomycete Systematics: Principle, Methods and Practice: Beijing: Science press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hasegawa T, Takizawa M, Tanida S. A rapid analysis for chemical grouping of aerobic actinomycetes. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 1983; 29(4): 319–322. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lechevalier MP, Lechevalier H. Chemical composition as a criterion in the classification of aerobic actinomycetes. Int J Syst Bacteriol.1970; 20(4): 435–443. 10.1016/s0065-2164(08)70539-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Collins MD, Pirouz T, Goodfellow M, Minnikin DE. Distribution of Menaquinones in Actinomycetes and Corynebacteria [J]. J Gen Microbiol. 1977, 100(2): 221–230. 10.1099/00221287-100-2-221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kroppenstedt RM. Fatty acid and menaquinone analysis of actinomycetes and related organisms In: Goodfellow M and London Minnikin DE (editors). Chemical Methods in Bacterial Systematics. England: Academic Press; 1985; pp. 173–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1): 2182 10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee I, Ouk Kim Y, Park SC, Chun J. OrthoANI: An improved algorithm and software for calculating average nucleotide identity. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016; 66(2): 1100–1103. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yoon SH, Ha SM, Lim J, Kwon S, Chun J. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2017; 110(10): 1281–1286. 10.1007/s10482-017-0844-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meier-Kolthof J.P., Auch A.F., Klenk H. P., Goker M., (2013). Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013, 14(1): 60–60. 10.1186/1471-2105-14-60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rodriguez RL, Gunturu S, Harvey WT, Rossello-Mora R, Tiedje JM, Cole JR, et al. The Microbial Genomes Atlas (MiGA) webserver: taxonomic and gene diversity analysis of Archaea and Bacteria at the whole genome level. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 46(W1): W282–W288. 10.1093/nar/gky467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(45): 19126–31. 10.1073/pnas.0906412106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wayne LG, Brenner DJ, Colwell RR, Grimont PAD, Kandler O, Krichevsky MI, et al. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reconciliation of Approaches to Bacterial Systematics. Int J Syst Bacteriol.1987; 37(4): 463–464. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Garrity GM, Parker CT, Tindall BJ. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019; 69(1A): S1–S111. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vincent L, Richard D, Olivier G. FastME 2.0. FastME 2.0 a comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol Biol Evol. 2015; 32(10): 2798–2800. 10.1093/molbev/msv150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Farris JS. Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices. Am Nat. 1972; 106(951): 645–668. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yogesh S Shouche

2 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-29208

Proposal of Lentzea deserti (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhenggang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2020 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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yogesh S. Shouche

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 Funding Information Section of your manuscript:

[Major Science and Technology Program of Hunan Province, Grant/Award Number:

26 2017NK1014; Forestry Science and Technology Project of Hunan Province, Grant/Award

27 Number: XLK201825; Key Technology R&D Program of Changsha, Grant/Award Number:

28 kq190114; State Forestry and Grassland Bureau, Grant/Award Number: 2018-01.]

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:

 [No]

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

3.Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

[No].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: Background

In a genomic-based classification of the type strains of Lentzea atacamensis and Lentzea deserti the authors have correctly concluded that the organisms belong to a single species. Nomenclatural matters can cause confusion at the best of times hence it is important that the authors present their conclusions in an unambiguous way and in so doing address the points raised below.

Major points

1. In the paper by Okoro et al. (2010) Lechevalieria atacamensus has priority over Lechavalieria deserti hence the latter needs to be proposed as a later heterotypic synonym of the former.

2. The title of the paper needs to be amended by adding that an "emended description of Lentzea atacamensis is given."

3. It needs to be made clear, especially in the Abstract and Introduction, that the proposal to recognise Lentzea deserti as a later hetertoypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis is based on phenotypic as well as genomic data even though the latter outweigh the former.

4. The Introduction needs to be revised along the following lines:

(a) The initial classification of the genera Lechevalieria and Lentzea and the perceived relationship between them reflected the limited resolution of the taxonomic methods available at the time. Please add appropriate references.

(b) The application of phylogenomic and associated phenotypic methods clearly showed that Lechevaleria should be seen as a subjective synonym of Lentzea.

(c) The genus Lentzea currently includes 20 validly named species including Lentzea atacamensis and Lentzea deserti which were previously classified as Lechevalieria atacamensis and Lechevalieria deserti. Please add appropriate references.

(d) The aim of the present study was to clarify the relationship between the type strains of L. atacamensis and L. deserti based on genomic and associated phenotypic data.

(e) Please note that the genus Lentzea has been emended by Labeda et al. (2001) and later by Fang et al. (2017. IJSEM 67 : 2357-2362). In contrast, it has not been emended by Lee et al. (2000).

(f) The authors note the anomalous position of "Lechevalieria rhizosphaerae" but have not addressed this issue. Their paper would be much improved were they to do so.

Minor points

Line 45. The term "first" is redundant.

Line 60. Lentzea atacamensis ....Delete "The type strain".

Line 68. ISP2 agar.

Line 86. Reference 14 not 11.

Lines 88-92. Might be wise here and get straight to the point and say that the results of this study provide further evidence that data derived from draft whole-genome sequences provide much greater resolution than 16S rRNA gene sequence studies (plus references) and then go on to consider the hard data.

Lines 99-102. The phenotypic data need to be given a little more emphasis as they underpin the genomic results. Were the results of the triplicate tests identical?

Lines 107-130.

* Line 110. "additions"

* The description should be based on the results obtained on each of the type strains.

* It should also include data on genome size and digital DNA G+C ratios.

References.

* Apart from the first word in the titles all other words should be lower case.

* Line 172. "Systematics".

Line 21. Phylogenomic tree is more precise than phylogenetic tree.

Figure 2. The plates are really nice but these results are probably best presented as supplementary data.

Reviewer #2: The authors proposed Lentzea deserti as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis based on phenotypic, phylogenetic and genomic data. The content is well managed but the authors should reconsider the following points:

The introduction section is poor and should be improved by providing a proper taxonomic description of the taxa and their features (habitat, chemotaxonomic, genetic traits etc)

The phylogenetic relationships between Lentzea deserti and Lentzea atacamensis as well as with their close neighbours should be discussed and compared with previous studies. More genomic features should be added and discussed in the text and not just refer to Table 1. The morphology of strains 45480 and 45479 should be commented in the text.

No chemotaxonomic analyses were carried out in this present report. It would be good if the authors could add to this emended species some additional chemotaxonomic traits such as polar lipids, quinone and sugars (optional). The Fatty acids analysis should be performed for both strains in the same time and under the same condition. Since the genomes of both strains are available, it would improve the manuscript if the authors could highlight some interesting features of this proposed emended species (optional).

In the emendation section, Biolog section should be in the text and not in the emendation section. The authors should also include the genome sizes and the G+C content for the species L. atacamensis.

**********

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: Yes: Professor Michael Goodfellow

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246533.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Nov 2020

Dear Yogesh S. Shouche and reviews,

Thank you for sending me the reviewers’ comments. Taking the comments into consideration, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript and re-submit the revised manuscript together with the responses to relevant comments. All changes were marked in the manuscript and have been approved by all authors.

We hope that the revision is adequate and thank you for considering our manuscript.

Please contact with us if any other necessary.

Best regards,

Mo Ping and Xu Zhenggang

E-mail: xuzhenggang@nwafu.edu.cn

Comments from Reviewer 1

1. In the paper by Okoro et al. (2010) Lechevalieria atacamensus has priority over Lechavalieria deserti hence the latter needs to be proposed as a later heterotypic synonym of the former.

Response: Thinks! We have made changes according to your comment.

2. The title of the paper needs to be amended by adding that an "emended description of Lentzea atacamensis is given."

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 4-7). We are grateful for your this comment. We accept your suggestion and changed the title as “Proposal of Lentzea deserti (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 and an emended description of Lentzea atacamensis”.

3. It needs to be made clear, especially in the Abstract and Introduction, that the proposal to recognise Lentzea deserti as a later hetertoypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis is based on phenotypic as well as genomic data even though the latter outweigh the former.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 33-36 and Line 46-48).

In abstract, we revised: These results suggested that L. atacamensis and L. deserti should share the same taxonomic position. And this conclusion was further supported by similar phenotypic and chemotaxonomic features between them (Line 33-36).

In introduction, we revised: According to the List of LPSN (https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/lentzea), there are currently over 20 species of the genus Lentzea with validly published names [9] (Line 46-48).

4. The Introduction needs to be revised along the following lines:

(a) The initial classification of the genera Lechevalieria and Lentzea and the perceived relationship between them reflected the limited resolution of the taxonomic methods available at the time. Please add appropriate references.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 50-53).

We revised: As separate genomic species, Lechevalieria atacamensis and Lechevalieria deserti were isolated from hyperarid soils of the Atacama Desert and proposed in 2010 as two validly named species based on a polyphasic taxonomic approach [9] (Line 50-53).

In the current systematics, the classification of prokaryote is based on a so-called polyphasic taxonomic approach, comprised of phenotypic, chemotaxonomic and genotypic data, as well as phylogenetic information. Of these, classical DNA–DNA hybridization (DDH) plays a key role in determining procaryotic species relatedness as it provides a clear and objective numerical threshold for a species boundary, for which 70% DDH was suggested. DDH has been the ‘gold standard’ for bacterial species demarcation over the last 50 years, but DDH procedures are known to be labor-intensive, error-prone and do not allow the generation of cumulative databases. Thus, there has been an urgent need for an alternative genotype-based standard. With the development of whole genome sequencing technology, many efforts have been made to develop a bioinformatic method to replace DDH for differentiating species. These efforts were mainly focused on devising values analogous to DDH values, such as genome BLAST distance phylogeny (GBDP), average nucleotide identity (ANI) and maximal unique matches index (MUMi). Of these, ANI has been most widely used as a possible next-generation gold standard for species delineation. At present, the proposed and generally accepted species boundary for ANI value is 95–96%, equate to a DDH value of 70%.

In Okoro's study, phenotypic characterization, chemotaxonomic characterization and phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequence are not sufficient to categorize L. deserti as distinct from L. atacamensis; And they were proposed to be two novel species, it is mainly because 41.8% classic DNA-DNA hybridization value between the type strains of L. deserti and L. atacamensis was well below the threshold used to delineate prokaryote species. Actually, Okoro CK et al. found that most features between them were almost identical, such as phenotypic properties, spore morphology and fatty acids.However, in our study, phenotypic characterization, chemotaxonomic characterization, genome phylogenetic analysis and digit DNA-DNA correlation analysis between L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T (=C61T=DSM 45479T) and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T (=C68T=DSM 45480T) are sufficient to prove that they belong to the same species.

(b) The application of phylogenomic and associated phenotypic methods clearly showed that Lechevaleria should be seen as a subjective synonym of Lentzea.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 104-117).

We revised: As shown in Table 1 and S1 Fig, most features between them were almost identical. For example, they were produced white aerial mycelium on ISP 3, ISP 4 and ISP 5. In Biolog GENIII test, positive for growth on acetoacetic acid, acetic acid, acid Methyl Ester, aztreonam, etc.; And negative for growth on D-aspartic acid, D-fructose-6-PO4, D-fucose etc. They both contained meso-DAP in the cell-wall, and galactose, mannose and rhamnose as the whole-cell sugar. The major menaquinones of strains consisted of MK-9 (H4) (Table 1). At the same time, the genomes size of strain L. atacamensis DSM 45479T is 9,306,230 bp in 38 of contigs. 9075 protein coding genes, 90 rRNA gene, 6635 protein coding genes, 2440 without function prediction and 1569 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted. While the genomes size of strain L. deserti DSM 45480T is 9,529,573 bp in 50 of contigs. 9221 protein coding genes, 86 rRNA gene, 6780 protein coding genes, 2442 without function prediction and 1589 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted (Table 2).

(c) The genus Lentzea currently includes 20 validly named species including Lentzea atacamensis and Lentzea deserti which were previously classified as Lechevalieria atacamensis and Lechevalieria deserti. Please add appropriate references.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 46-48).

(d) The aim of the present study was to clarify the relationship between the type strains of L. atacamensis and L. deserti based on genomic and associated phenotypic data.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Question and Reply 4b).

(e) Please note that the genus Lentzea has been emended by Labeda et al. (2001) and later by Fang et al. (2017. IJSEM 67: 2357-2362). In contrast, it has not been emended by Lee et al. (2000).

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 42).

(f) The authors note the anomalous position of "Lechevalieria rhizosphaerae" but have not addressed this issue. Their paper would be much improved were they to do so.

Response: Revised. Thanks for the comment.

Minor point

5. Line 45. The term "first" is redundant.

Response: Revised.

6. Line 60. Lentzea atacamensis ....Delete "The type strain".

Response: Revised.

7. Line 68. ISP2 agar.

Response: Revised (please see Line 69).

8. Line 86. Reference 14 not 11.

Response: Revised.

9. Lines 88-92. Might be wise here and get straight to the point and say that the results of this study provide further evidence that data derived from draft whole-genome sequences provide much greater resolution than 16S rRNA gene sequence studies (plus references) and then go on to consider the hard data.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 93-97).

The phylogenomic analysis showed that L. deserti C68T was most closely related to L. atacamensis C61T (Fig. 1), confirming that they should belong to the same genomic species. This result further suggested that the phylogenetic analysis based on whole genome sequences exhibited better resolution than the phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequence [23].

10. Lines 99-102. The phenotypic data need to be given a little more emphasis as they underpin the genomic results. Were the results of the triplicate tests identical?

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 75-78, Line 108-110, Line 129-132 and Line 307).

We have added experiment: The isomer of diaminopimelic acid and sugar analysis of whole-cell hydrolysates were performed according to the procedures described by Hasegawa et al. [15] and Lechevalier and Lechevalier [16]. Menaquinones were extracted according to the method of Collins et al. [17] and analyzed by HPLC [18].

Yes, the results of the triplicate tests are same.

11. Lines 107-130.

* Line 110. "additions"

Response: Revised (please see Line 123) .

* The description should be based on the results obtained on each of the type strains.

* It should also include data on genome size and digital DNA G+C ratios.

Response: Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line110-117and Line 122-132).

12. References.

* Apart from the first word in the titles all other words should be lower case.

* Line 172. "Systematics".

Response: Revised (please see Line 195-196 etc.).

13. Line 21. Phylogenomic tree is more precise than phylogenetic tree.

Thinks, I agree with you (please see Line 93-96).

14. Figure 2. The plates are really nice but these results are probably best presented as supplementary data.

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 138-140 and Supporting file).

Comments from Reviewer 2

The authors proposed Lentzea deserti as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis based on phenotypic, phylogenetic and genomic data. The content is well managed but the authors should reconsider the following points:

15. The introduction section is poor and should be improved by providing a proper taxonomic description of the taxa and their features (habitat, chemotaxonomic, genetic traits etc

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 42-50).

The strains of this genus form abundant aerial hyphae that fragment into rod-shaped elements. Whole-cell hydrolysates contain meso-diaminopimelic acid as diagnostic diamino acid and MK-9 (H4) was the predominant menaquinone; The G+C content of genomic DNA ranges from 64.1 to 71.0 mol%. According to the List of LPSN (https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/lentzea), there are currently over 20 species of the genus Lentzea with validly published names. Lentzea species are distributed in different habitats, such as human pathological tissue [1], an equine placenta [4], a limestone [5] and different soils [6-8].

16. The phylogenetic relationships between Lentzea deserti and Lentzea atacamensis as well as with their close neighbors should be discussed and compared with previous studies. More genomic features should be added and discussed in the text and not just refer to Table 1. The morphology of strains 45480 and 45479 should be commented in the text.

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 50-54 and Line 102-117).

We added: In addition, comparative phenotypic characteristics of L. atacamensis CGMCC 4.5536T and L. deserti CGMCC 4.5535T are presented in Table 2 and S1 Fig. As shown in Table 1 and S1 Fig, most features between them were almost identical. For example, they were produced white aerial mycelium on ISP 3, ISP 4 and ISP 5. In Biolog GENIII test, positive for growth on acetoacetic acid, acetic acid, acid Methyl Ester, aztreonam, etc.; And negative for growth on D-aspartic acid, D-fructose-6-PO4, D-fucose etc. They both contained meso-DAP in the cell-wall, and galactose, mannose and rhamnose as the whole-cell sugar. The major menaquinones of strains consisted of MK-9 (H4) (Table 1). At the same time, the genomes size of strain L. atacamensis DSM 45479T is 9,306,230 bp in 38 of contigs. 9075 protein coding genes, 90 rRNA gene, 6635 protein coding genes, 2440 without function prediction and 1569 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted. While the genomes size of strain L. deserti DSM 45480T is 9,529,573 bp in 50 of contigs. 9221 protein coding genes, 86 rRNA gene, 6780 protein coding genes, 2442 without function prediction and 1589 protein coding genes with enzymes were predicted (Table 2).

17. No chemotaxonomic analyses were carried out in this present report. It would be good if the authors could add to this emended species some additional chemotaxonomic traits such as polar lipids, quinone and sugars (optional).

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 75-78).

We have added the additional chemotaxonomic traits under the same conditions: the isomer of diaminopimelic acid analysis and sugar analysis of whole-cell hydrolysates, menaquinones.

18. The Fatty acids analysis should be performed for both strains in the same time and under the same condition.

Thanks for the comment. We have not repeated the fatty acids, because the fatty acids of strains L. atacamensis and L. deserti were from the same paper (Okoro et al. [9]). They should compare in the same time and under the same condition.

19. Since the genomes of both strains are available, it would improve the manuscript if the authors could highlight some interesting features of this proposed emended species (optional).

In the further, we will carry out some interesting features of strains.

20. In the emendation section, Biolog section should be in the text and not in the emendation section.

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 106-108).

21. The authors should also include the genome sizes and the G+C content for the species L. atacamensis.

Thanks for the comment. Revisions have been made accordingly (please see Line 106-108).. We have added the genome sizes and the G+C content for the species L. atacamensis: The DNA G+C content of the genome sequence, consisting of 19,306,230 bp, was 68.9 mol%.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to editors and reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Feng ZHANG

21 Jan 2021

Proposal of Lentzea deserti (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 and an emended description of Lentzea atacamensis

PONE-D-20-29208R1

Dear Dr. Xu,

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,

Feng ZHANG, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Feng ZHANG

26 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-29208R1

Proposal of Lentzea deserti (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 as a later heterotypic synonym of Lentzea atacamensis (Okoro et al. 2010) Nouioui et al. 2018 and an emended description of Lentzea atacamensis

Dear Dr. Zheng-Gang:

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. Feng ZHANG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Cultural characteristics of strains in different medium after 21d of incubation at 28°C.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to editors and reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES