User:Annissaho/Ascosphaera aggregata/Wshepherdmyco Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Annisaho)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Annissaho/sandbox

Content
In general, your article has been excellently researched. Your description of growth, morphology, and sexual development stands out in particular--it provides a very detailed and clear description of pathogenic progression in Megachile rotundata, allowing the reader to follow the disease easily from spore ingestion through to hemocoel invasion and sexual reproduction. However, I found a couple of more primary research papers that you might want to consider as well:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022201105001497. This paper (I've included both the citation and a link to a digital copy) describes a new PCR-based diagnostic method for determining Ascosphaera infections in bees, including A. aggregata. Previous techniques, such as isozyme analysis, required pure cultures of spores that could only be obtained through already symptomatic bees. By developing and employing species-specific PCR primers, however, James and Skinner were able to devise a method that could detect infection status accurately even in asymptomatic bees. This makes it a powerful potential tool in efforts to better monitor and perhaps prevent the spread of bee colony infection. The incorporation of this study might also allow you to create a new sub-section in your article focused solely on diagnostic techniques and their respective strengths and limitations.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11046-004-2910-5. While it is easy to culture A. aggregata hyphae using traditional methods, spore germination has always been difficult to attain. This paper, though, describes the successful use of lipids (in the form of canola oils and many others) to encourage germination. This information might be good to put under the "Physiology" section of your article, as it might provide researchers with tips as to how to culture this fungus appropriately in their own labs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022201109000548. This article provides information about how to best store A. aggregata spores, with freeze-drying emerging as the best option. Unfortunately, they could not find a way to preserve hyphae. Again, this sort of information could be put under the "Physiology" sub-heading of your paper, as it teaches good lab practices to those who aim to study this species.

One final note. In your "Habitat and Ecology" section, you have a bullet point that starts with "not reported to" but remains incomplete. I'm not sure if you forgot to input a piece of information there, or forgot to delete something unimportant, but it should be resolved before you publish your final article.

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance of your paper is good. Your writing voice remains passive throughout, which is needed in scientific writing, and you should adopt this same approach when it comes time to compose the final article.

Sources and References
While most of the information in your article is cited correctly, there is a part of the "Growth and Morphology" section which is not. In the very first line of the section, you claim that A. aggregata is "glabrous and flexous, fimicolous and coprophilous", but provide no in-text citation as support. As such descriptors are fundamental to the most basic identification of the fungus, you should try to resolve the situation before you publish the article in order to avoid potentially misleading readers.

Also, there are a couple of broken hyperlinks scattered around the page, like for "chalkbrood" and "nutriocyte". These should also be fixed before you publish.

Organization
While you have broken down the content well, there might be some room for improvement. First of all, you might want to put the "Habitat and ecology" section BEFORE the "Growth and morphology" section. As the article currently stands, you move from a discussion of history right into a discussion of larval infection, with no natural segue in between. By putting the "Habitat and ecology" section before "growth and morphology", however, you would be able to provide readers with some context--if they know first that A. aggregata is an obligate fungal parasite of Megachile rotundata and causes Chalkbrood disease, they will understand why larval bee infection is being discussed in the next section.

Secondly, you might want to consider renaming your "Growth and morphology" section to "Growth, morphology, and pathobiology". At least from my point of view, when I read the phrase "Growth and morphology" I tend to picture the colonization of a fungus on a sterile, abiotic media. However, A. aggregata is an obligate parasite, and its growth in nature is inextricably linked with the invasion and destruction of bee larvae. By including the term "pathobiology", or "pathological progression" in your section heading you can better focus readers on the ecological role of the fungus.

I also wanted to say that I really liked that you included a section on economic importance! It helps underscore the fact that medical mycology isn't some fringe subject that no one outside of academia should be concerned with--fungal infections can have a massive impact on our wallets, our food, and the pollinators we rely so closely on. It helps readers become invested in the story of this fungus, and I think you should expand upon it as much as you possibly can.

Overall impressions
This article is well-researched, written in an appropriate tone, and includes an "Economic importance" section that allows readers to understand how this fungus impacts us as human beings. With some slight reorganization, the appropriate citation of certain facts, and the correction of broken hyperlinks, it will turn out very well. Great job.