Unfolding the secrets of microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) in cold-water coral

ABSTRACT Recent deep-ocean exploration has uncovered a variety of cold-water coral (CWC) ecosystems around the world ocean, but it remains unclear how microbiome is associated with these corals at a molecular levels. This study utilized metabarcoding, tissue section observation, and metatranscriptomes to investigate the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) of CWC species (Narella versluysi, Heterogorgia uatumani, and Muriceides sp.) from depths ranging from 260 m to 370 m. Warm-water coral (WWC) species (Acropora pruinosa, Pocillopora damicornis, and Galaxea fascicularis) were used as control groups. Results revealed that CWC host diverse bacteria and Symbiodiniaceae cells were observed in endoderm of CWC tissues. Several new candidate bacterial phyla were found in both CWC and WWC, including Coralsanbacteria, Coralqiangbacteria, Coralgsqaceae, Coralgongineae, etc. Both the 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metatranscriptomes revealed that Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were abundant bacterial phyla in CWC. At the gene transcription level, the CWC-associated Symbiodiniaceae community showed a low-level transcription of genes involved in photosynthesis, CO2 fixation, glycolysis, citric acid cycle, while bacteria associated with CWC exhibited a high-level transcription of genes for carbon fixation via the Wood-Lijungdahl pathway, short chain fatty acids production, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles. IMPORTANCE This study shed new light on the functions of both Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria in cold-water coral (CWC). The results demonstrated that Symbiodiniaceae can survive and actively transcribe genes in CWC, suggesting a possible symbiotic or parasitic relationship with the host. This study also revealed complete non-photosynthetic CO2 fixation pathway of bacteria in CWC, as well as their roles in short chain fatty acids production and assimilation of host-derived organic nitrogen and sulfur. These findings highlight the important role of bacteria in the carbon, nitrogen sulfur cycles in CWC, which were possibly crucial for CWC survival in in deep-water environments.


Major concerns:
-The paper is relevant to the field, showing important findings that will help to fill gaps in the area.However, the number of replicates (or even pseudoreplicates, it is still unclear) makes me think that the whole results and discussion sections will need to be reformulated.If the authors are using pseudoreplicates (as it seems like), they should not do any comparison and not work with abundance analyses but simply a description of the findings.Also, the statistics should be reviewed if this is the case.Once the authors make the methodology clear regarding the number of true replicates they used for each analysis, we can better judge what can be done to show and discuss the results.
-The paper needs English review AND technical review.Abstract -Line 20 -Change "habitants" for "habitats"?It is unclear.
-Line 22-The sentence is too long and has grammar mistakes.Consider changing it to "We also analyzed the metatranscriptomes of THE sampled CWCs...".-Line 23 -"from depths down to 260-370 m" Is it the total range or the range of the deepest spot?It is confusing.
-Line 24 -It is plural, so it should be "were used as control groups".
-Line 25-26 -"and predominantly of diverse communities of bacteria" The sentence is confusing.Please rewrite it.
-Line 26-27 -"We designated several new candidate bacterial phyla" Grammar is wrong here and the word designated is not appropriate for what the authors mean.-Line 28 -Remove "and/or", it should be "and" only.
-Line 29 -Consider changing "16S metabarcode sequencing" to "the 16S rRNA gene sequencing".-Line 30-32 -Consider changing it to "we noted that the coral-associated Symbiodiniaceae community showed a low-level transcription of genes involved in photosynthesis, CO2 fixation, glycolysis, citric acid cycle and other core function pathways in the CWCs."-Line 35 -Correct it to "host-derived".Also, the parenthesis is cutting the flow and it is redundant with the main text.Please rewrite it.
-Line 36 -The authors start the "importance" section repeating what they just said in the previous section "the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) in the CWCs 37 from depth down to 260-370 m were illustrated".Remove the whole sentence.-Line 37 -Remove "Importantly", it is unnecessary.
-Line 40-41 -"Our present results indicated that the energy requirements of CWCs were mainly acquired by 41 bacteria via non-photosynthetic CO2 fixation pathway".This sentence is not proven, the results do not indicate this.It is too much speculation.

Introduction
The introduction is confusing and does not follow a clear flow.The information is relevant, but the ideas are disconnected and loose.It needs to be reviewed and rewritten.
-Line 48-50 -What about ROV?They are a huge part of these advancements.
-Line 48-59 -The first paragraph has relevant information but all the sentences are disconnected and/or out of place, breaking the flow and making the text confusing.Please, improve the whole paragraph.Line 60 -Change "a range of microorganisms" to "different groups of microorganisms".Line 63 -Change "focus" to "focused".Line 64 -Change "illustrated" to "shown".Line 65 -"that THE ASSOCIATED microbiome".Line 67-68 -Change "In WWCs, bacteria has been implicated in several other services" to "Additionally, bacterial communities associated with WWCs have been proved to play several important roles, such..." Line 69-73 -These two sentences are completely out of place.The authors simply go from the importance of the associated microbiome to bleaching and disease without explaining much about these subjects.These are both very complex topics that should be a little more exploited (if mentioned).Line 74-77 -Again, two sentences completely disconnected between themselves and, also, disconnected from the previous paragraph.Line 102 -"from depths down to 260-370 m" Same concern mentioned in the abstract section Line 102-103 -"to address THE questions mentioned above" Line 105 -Remove "commonly known".

Material and Methods
It is not very clear how many samples of each coral species were used for each analysis.For example, how many replicates (not pseudoreplicates) were used for the molecular results.Please, make it clearer in the section.Line 303-304 -Change "during a cruise in the eastern (112.918-112.934{degreesign} E, 304 18.741-18.764{degreesign} N) Hainan Island of the South China Sea on December of 2021" to "during a cruise in the eastern Hainan Island of the South China Sea (112.918-112.934{degreesign} E, 304 18.741-18.764{degreesign} N) on December of 2021 Line 305 -"For each CWC, THE colony was 306 pressing down..." Line 306-307 -Change to "Branches (about 5-10 cm in 307 height) were collected from the coral colonies using the submersible's manipulator claw" Line 307 -Same as above.Line 310-311 -Change to "were collected from, Sanya, Hainan Island, China (109.292{degreesign} E, 18.123{degree sign} N), a tropical coral reef, by snorkeling..." Line 317 -Change "that contains" to "containing" Line 323 -Change "are" to "were".Please, be consistent with the language, if you choose past tense, keep everything in past tense.

Major concern:
The authors start the section by saying that "Due to the difficulty in obtaining replicate samples of each CWC species, we mainly focused on 112 the description of different taxon of Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria in explored corals".However, instead of simply describing the taxa, they start talking about "abundance".I don't think this should be even mentioned.If there are not enough replicates to calculate a reliable "abundance", simply keep the description of the taxa.Also, I would change the analysis from OTUs to ASVs.Minor: Line 112 -Change "taxon" to "taxa" and "explored" to "sampled" Discussion: Line 215 -Remove the sentence "The present results showed CWCs from depth of 260-370 m hosted Symbiodiniaceae."Line 229 -Change "Importantly, we firstly observed binary fission cells of 229 Symbiodiniaceae in the endoderm tissues of the CWCs living in deep-waters."To "Importantly, we reported binary fission cells of 229 Symbiodiniaceae in the endoderm tissues of the CWCs living in deep-waters for the first time."Line 232-234 -"These results indicated that the Symbiodiniaceae could be a symbiont or parasite of 233 CWCs and had cellular activity, which were important for Symbiodiniaceae acclimation to deep234 water habitants" I disagree with this conclusion, I think it is too much speculation.The results do not suggest this.Line 249 -Change "supporting" to "supports" and "speculate" to "speculations"?Line 250 -"Furthermore..." Should be a new paragraph.Line 259 -"nitrogen cycles" to "nitrogen cycle" Summary Line 285-286 -Change "the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) in the CWC from depth down to 286 200-300 m were illustrated."To "the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) associated with CWC from depth ranging from 200-300 m (this is different from the rest...) were investigated."Line 288-289 -"The energy requirements of CWCs were 289 mainly acquired by bacteria via a non-photosynthetic CO2 fixation pathway."The results do not support this sentence.It should be removed or reformulated as merely a speculation.

Preparing Revision Guidelines
To submit your modified manuscript, log onto the eJP submission site at https://spectrum.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex.Go to Author Tasks and click the appropriate manuscript title to begin the revision process.The information that you entered when you first submitted the paper will be displayed.Please update the information as necessary.Here are a few examples of required updates that authors must address: • Point-by-point responses to the issues raised by the reviewers in a file named "Response to Reviewers," NOT IN YOUR COVER LETTER.
• Upload a compare copy of the manuscript (without figures) as a "Marked-Up Manuscript" file.
• Each figure must be uploaded as a separate file, and any multipanel figures must be assembled into one file.For complete guidelines on revision requirements, please see the journal Submission and Review Process requirements at https://journals.asm.org/journal/Spectrum/submission-review-process.Submissions of a paper that does not conform to Microbiology Spectrum guidelines will delay acceptance of your manuscript." Please return the manuscript within 60 days; if you cannot complete the modification within this time period, please contact me.If you do not wish to modify the manuscript and prefer to submit it to another journal, please notify me of your decision immediately so that the manuscript may be formally withdrawn from consideration by Microbiology Spectrum.
If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be contacted separately about payment when the proofs are issued; please follow the instructions in that e-mail.Arrangements for payment must be made before your article is published.For a complete list of Publication Fees, including supplemental material costs, please visit our website.
Corresponding authors may join or renew ASM membership to obtain discounts on publication fees.Need to upgrade your membership level?Please contact Customer Service at Service@asmusa.org.
Thank you for submitting your paper to Microbiology Spectrum.

Dear Editors and Reviewers,
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editors and reviewers in reviewing the manuscript entitled "Unfolding the Secrets of Microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and Bacteria) In Cold-water Coral"(Manuscript ID: Microbiology Spectrum -Spectrum01315-23).The newly submitted manuscript has made point-to-point revision according to the editor's and reviewer's comments.In the revised manuscript, all corrections have been marked in red.The detailed responses and corrections are listed below.

Reviewer #1 (Comments for the Author):
In this study, Gong et al. analyzed the microbiome of cold-water coral.they found that CWC host low-abundance Symbiodiniaceae and predominantly of diverse communities of bacteria.Importantly, their present results indicated that Symbiodiniaceae might be a symbiont or parasite of CWC and has cellular activity, these finds were important for photosynthetic algae to acclimation to deep water habitants.In addition, this study revealed that bacteria were abundant in CWC, which exhibited a high-level transcription of genes for carbon fixation via the Wood-Lijungdahl pathway, as well as short chain fatty acids (acetate, butyrate and propionate) production, nitrogen and sulfur (especially host derived organic nitrogen and sulfur metabolisms) cycles, suggesting the energy requirements of CWC were mainly acquired by bacteria via non-photosynthetic CO 2 fixation pathway.The findings advanced general understanding of the mechanisms of CWCs surviving in deep-water environments, which which receive less than 1% of surface irradiance.In all, this is an interesting study.However, some minor revision is needed that may improve the quality of the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.
1. Line 37: were should be revised to was Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Due to repeat with previous section, the whole sentence has been deleted in revised manuscript.The singular and plural of verbs have been checked throughout the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The "CO2" has been revised to "CO 2 " throughout the manuscript.

Line 74:
There is a problem of the reference format (Hourigan., 2007), please check and revise Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The reference citation has been checked and revised.4. Line 75: "been inferred" been should be deleted.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."been" has been deleted in revised manuscript.

Line 76:
There is a problem of the reference format (Hourigan., 2007), please check and revise Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The reference citation has been checked and revised.
6. Line 77: for should be revised to on Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The "for" has been revised into "on" in newly submitted manuscript.

Line 83:
There is a problem of the reference format (Hourigan., 2007), please check and revise Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Reference citation has been checked and revised.
8. Line 94: less is revised to less are Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The original setence "While these CWCs, more specifically Leptoseris spp., have received a lot of attention, comparatively less is understood about cold-water octocoral species" has been changed to "While attentoin has been focused on Leptoseris spp., there is comparatively less knowledge on cold-water octocoral species" in revised manuscript.9. Line 156: Carbohydrates should be revised to carbohydrates Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The word "Carbohydrates" has been revised to "carbohydrates".sentence "An increased potential of nitrogen cycle, including nitrogen transport, inorganic nitrogen fixation, nitrification and denitrification related processes, was observed in bacteria of CWCs" has been changed to "Bacteria associated with CWC were found to have an increased potential for nitrogen cycle processes, including nitrogen transport, inorganic nitrogen fixation, nitrification and denitrification" in revised manuscript.
12. Line 182: were primarily assigned should be revised to was primarily assigned Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentence "The increased relative abundance of three genes encoding nitrogen fixation protein (nifB, >0.5-times, nifT, >1-times and nifU, 8-times) were primarily assigned to bacteria associated with CWCs"has been changed to "The relative abundance of three genes encoding nitrogen fixation protein (nifB, >0.5-times, nifT, >1-times and nifU, 8-times) was significantly higher in CWC-associated bacteria "in revised manuscript.
13. Line 186: an notable should be revised to a notable Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related setences "Simultaneously, the bacteria associated with CWCs exhibited a notable increased potential for urea transport and degradation, as well as glutamine and glutamate biosynthesis, an increase in genes encoding urea transporter (63-times, urtA/B/C/D), urease subunits and accessory proteins (640-times on average), glutamine synthetase, which assimilates one molecule each of ammonia, glutamate and ATP into glutamine (1518-times), and glutamate synthase, which leads to glutamate (546-times, gltB/D)."have been changed to "Furthermore, the bacteria associated with CWC exhibited an escalated potential for urea transport and degradation, as well as glutamine and glutamate biosynthesis.This was evidenced by an increase in genes encoding urea transporter (63-times, urtA/B/C/D), urease subunits and accessory proteins (640-times on average), glutamine synthetase (1518-times, glnA) and glutamate synthase (546-times, gltB/D)." in revised manuscript.

Line 195: Sulfur cycle should be revised to sulfur cycle
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Sulfur cycle has be revised to sulfur cycle in revised manuscript.
15. Line 244-245: the sentence "indicating non-photosynthetic CO2 fixation by bacteria is play important roles in organic carbon supply of CWCs."Should be revised to "indicating non-photosynthetic CO2 fixation by bacteria is playing important roles in supplying organic carbon to CWCs." Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.related description has been revised into "indicating non-photosynthetic CO 2 fixation by bacteria is playing important roles in supplying organic carbon to CWC." according to your suggestion.16.Line 246: the word "acquire" should be revised to "acquired" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.the word "acquire" has be changed to "acquired" in revised manuscript.17.Line 251: the word "were" should be revised to "was" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The singular and plural of verbs have been checked throughout the manuscript.
18. Line 289: the word "were" should be revised to "was" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The singular and plural of verbs have been checked throughout the manuscript.-The paper is relevant to the field, showing important findings that will help to fill gaps in the area.However, the number of replicates (or even pseudoreplicates, it is still unclear) makes me think that the whole results and discussion sections will need to be reformulated.If the authors are using pseudoreplicates (as it seems like), they should not do any comparison and not work with abundance analyses but simply a description of the findings.Also, the statistics should be reviewed if this is the case.
Once the authors make the methodology clear regarding the number of true replicates they used for each analysis, we can better judge what can be done to show and discuss study utilized metabarcoding,tissue section observation and metatranscriptomes to investigate the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) of CWC species (Narella versluysi, Heterogorgia uatumani and Muriceides sp.) from depths ranging from 260 m to 370 m.". in revised manuscript.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."from depths down to 260-370 m" has been revised into "from depths ranging from 260 m to 370 m" in corrected manuscript.7. Line 24 -It is plural, so it should be "were used as control groups".
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related description has been changed into "were used as control groups" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentences "At the gene transcription level, we noted that the Symbiodiniaceae showed a low-level transcription of genes involved in photosynthesis, CO2 fixation, glycolysis, citric acid cycle and other core function pathways in the CWCs." have been changed into "At the gene transcription level, the CWC-associated Symbiodiniaceae community showed a low-level transcription of genes involved in photosynthesis, CO 2 fixation, glycolysis, citric acid cycle….." 13.Line 35 -Correct it to "host-derived".Also, the parenthesis is cutting the flow and it is redundant with the main text.Please rewrite it.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentences "The bacteria exhibited a high-level transcription of genes for carbon fixation via the Wood-Lijungdahl pathway, as well as short chain fatty acids (acetate, butyrate and propionate) production, nitrogen and sulfur (especially host derived organic nitrogen and sulfur metabolisms) cycles in the CWCs." have been changed into "bacteria associated with CWC exhibited a high-level transcription of genes for carbon fixation via the Wood-Lijungdahl pathway, short chain fatty acids production, nitrogen and sulfur cycles." 14 Line 36 -The authors start the "importance" section repeating what they just said in the previous section "the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) in the CWCs 37 from depth down to 260-370 m were illustrated".Remove the whole sentence.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.the whole sentence has been deleted according to your suggestion in revised manuscript.
15. Line 37 -Remove "Importantly", it is unnecessary.37. Line 317 -Change "that contains" to "containing" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."that contains" has been changed into "containing" in newly submitted manuscript.
38. Line 323 -Change "are" to "were".Please, be consistent with the language, if you choose past tense, keep everything in past tense.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.the "are" has been changed into "were", and the tense has been checked throughout the manuscript.

Major concern:
The authors start the section by saying that "Due to the difficulty in obtaining replicate samples of each CWC species, we mainly focused on 112 the description of different taxon of Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria in explored corals".However, instead of simply describing the taxa, they start talking about "abundance".I don't think this should be even mentioned.If there are not enough replicates to calculate a reliable "abundance", simply keep the description of the taxa.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.due to limited samples, the results and discussion parts were majorly focused on description of findings in revised manuscript.40.Also, I would change the analysis from OTUs to ASVs.
Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."OTUs" has been changed into "ASVs".
• Manuscript: A .DOC version of the revised manuscript • Figures: Editable, high-resolution, individual figure files are required at revision, TIFF or EPS files are preferred

10 .
Line 178: Nitrogen cycle should be revised to nitrogen cycle Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Nitrogen cycle has be revised to nitrogen cycle.11.Line 179: of nitrogen cycle should be revised to for nitrogen cycle Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related

19 .
Line 330: In details should be revised to In detail Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.In details has be revised to In detail.20.Line 378: the "a" should be revised to an Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.a has been changed to an. 21.FIG 2. A and B cannot be found, please check.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related description has been checked and revised.22. FIG 3. A and B cannot be found, please check.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related description has been checked and revised.Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions again.Reviewer #2 (Comments for the Author): 1. Major concerns:

5 .
Line 22-The sentence is too long and has grammar mistakes.Consider changing it to "We also analyzed the metatranscriptomes of THE sampled CWCs...".Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentences "In this study, we detected microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) using metabarcoding and tissue section observation, and screened the metatranscriptomes of sampled CWCs (Narella versluysi, Heterogorgia uatumani and Muriceides sp.) from depths down to 260-370 m." have been changed into "This study utilized metabarcoding,tissue section observation and metatranscriptomes to investigate the microbiome (Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria) of CWC species (Narella versluysi, Heterogorgia uatumani and Muriceides sp.) from depths ranging from 260 m to 370 m." in revised manuscript.6. Line 23 -"from depths down to 260-370 m" Is it the total range or the range of the deepest spot?It is confusing.

Introduction 18 .
The introduction is confusing and does not follow a clear flow.The information is relevant, but the ideas are disconnected and loose.It needs to be reviewed and rewritten.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.The introduction part has been rewritten in revised manuscript.19Line 48-50 -What about ROV?They are a huge part of these advancements.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related description has been changed into "However, only recent advancements in acoustic survey techniques and submersible tools (such as Remotely-Operated Vehicle)" according to your suggestion.20 Line 48-59 -The first paragraph has relevant information but all the sentences are disconnected and/or out of place, breaking the flow and making the text confusing.Please, improve the whole paragraph.Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.this paragraph has been rewritten in revised manuscript.21.Line 60 -Change "a range of microorganisms" to "different groups of microorganisms".Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."a range of microorganisms" has been changed into " different groups of microorganisms" according to your suggestion.22. Line 63 -Change "focus" to "focused".Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentences have been changed into "While the microboime of the most commonly studied reef-building coral in warm-water habitats (WWC) has been extensively researched (Gong et al., 2018; van de Water et al., 2018; Bollati et al., 2020; Gong, Jin, Ren, et al., 2020), there has been limited attention given to the microbiome of CWC due to cost and difficulty in sample retrieval (Hourigan., 2007)."23.Line 64 -Change "illustrated" to "shown".Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentences has been deleted in revised manuscript.28.Line 102 -"from depths down to 260-370 m" Same concern mentioned in the abstract section Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."from depths down to 260-370 m" has been revised into "from depths ranging from 260 m to 370 m" 29.Line 102-103 -"to address THE questions mentioned above" Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related description has been removed in revised manuscript.30.Line 105 -Remove "commonly known".Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions."commonly known" has been removed in newly submitted manuscript.Material and Methods 31.It is not very clear how many samples of each coral species were used for each analysis.For example, how many replicates (not pseudoreplicates) were used for the molecular results.Please, make it clearer in the section.Description of the number of pseudoreplicates is added in MATERIALS AND METHODS part of revised manuscript."a total of three CWC samples were used in this study, which including three different CWC species, N. versluysi, H. uatumani and Muriceides sp."For each coral species, one sample were used for related analysis due to obtaining replicate samples of each CWC species challenged in deep-waters.Therefore, the results and discussion parts were majorly focused on description of description has been revised as above.36.Line 310-311 -Change to "were collected from, Sanya, Hainan Island, China (109.292{degreesign} E, 18.123{degree sign} N), a tropical coral reef, by snorkeling..." Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related sentence has been changed into "A total of three WWC samples (Acropora sp., G. fascicularis and P. lamellina) were collected from, Sanya, Hainan Island, China (109.292°E, 18.123° N), a tropical coral reef, by snorkeling on December of 2021." according to your suggestion.
215 -Remove the sentence "The present results showed CWCs from depth of 260-370 m hosted Symbiodiniaceae."Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.This sentence has been deleted in revised mansucript.43.Line 229 -Change "Importantly, we firstly observed binary fission cells of 229 Symbiodiniaceae in the endoderm tissues of the CWCs living in deep-waters."To "Importantly, we reported binary fission cells of 229 Symbiodiniaceae in the endoderm tissues of the CWCs living in deep-waters for the first time."Response: Thanks for the meticulous checking and helpful suggestions.Related