Completed on 22 Apr 2016 by Keith Robison .
Login to endorse this review.
Author response is in blue.
Section 2.2, line 12 " pooled (by mass)" -- does "by mass" meaning normalized to equal masses of each input?
Table 1 -- Defined abundances have only single significant digit -- is this indicative of the precision of the mixing? The SMRT & ONT 2D are given to two significant figures -- is this appropriate? Table 3 gives the values to 3 significant figures .
Table 2 has 0 for the input abundance of the Klebsiella strains -- is this correct? If so, why was it detected in the community?
Are the methods appropriate to the aims of the study, are they well described, and are necessary controls included? If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data shown? If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s guidelines on minimum standards of reporting? If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional statistical review? If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
There are no statistics in the manuscript.
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests'
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I have been a participant, via my company, in the Oxford Nanopore MinION Access Program,
which has arguably provided reagents with greater value than the $1000 entrance fee.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.
Authors' response to reviews: (https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13742-016-0140-7/13742_2016_140_AuthorComment_V1.pdf)