Verification of Hypsibius exemplaris Gąsiorek et al., 2018 (Eutardigrada; Hypsibiidae) application in anhydrobiosis research.

Anhydrobiosis is considered to be an adaptation of important applicative implications because it enables resistance to the lack of water. The phenomenon is still not well understood at molecular level. Thus, a good model invertebrate species for the research is required. The best known anhydrobiotic invertebrates are tardigrades (Tardigrada), considered to be toughest animals in the world. Hypsibius. exemplaris is one of the best studied tardigrade species, with its name "exemplaris" referring to the widespread use of the species as a laboratory model for various types of research. However, available data suggest that anhydrobiotic capability of the species may be overestimated. Therefore, we determined anhydrobiosis survival by Hys. exemplaris specimens using three different anhydrobiosis protocols. We also checked ultrastructure of storage cells within formed dormant structures (tuns) that has not been studied yet for Hys. exemplaris. These cells are known to support energetic requirements of anhydrobiosis. The obtained results indicate that Hys. exemplaris appears not to be a good model species for anhydrobiosis research.

Introduction

One of the most prevalent adaptations to water deficiency is anhydrobiosis, often called simply ’life without water’, tolerance to desiccation or waiting for water to return [1-5]. More precisely, anhydrobiosis is described as the ability to dry to the point of equilibrium while exposed to moderately to very dry air (i.e., to 10% water content or even less) and then recover to normal functioning after rehydration without sustaining damages [6]. This denotes a series of coordinated events during dehydration and rehydration that are associated with preventing oxidative damages and maintaining the native structure at different levels of organism’s organization [7, 8].

Anhydrobiosis is also described as an adaptation to unstable environmental conditions including drought or freezing, that allows the organism to survive when the environment becomes hostile to active life. Therefore, anhydrobiosis is considered to be a phenomenon of important applicative implications, enabling biostabilization and biopreservation as well as human disease treatment (e.g. [9-15]). Anhydrobiosis occurs in prokaryotes (e.g. [16]) and eukaryotes, with the latter including many microorganisms (e.g. [17]) as well as plants (e.g. [8]) and some small invertebrates (e.g. [18]). Among animals the best known example are tardigrades (e.g. [19]), indicated lately as an emerging source of knowledge of importance for medical sciences [13].

Tardigrade anhydrobiosis includes entry, dormant and exit stages, that correspond to the dehydration (i.e., tun formation), tun and rehydration stages, respectively [18, 20]. On the organismal level, the tun formation and return to the active stage have been quite well described and are understood fairly well [3, 21–26]. The key morphological changes during tun formation are longitudinal contraction of the body, invagination of the legs and intersegmental cuticle that are then reverted during rehydration. However, responsible cellular and molecular mechanisms are not yet fully described.

At the present, the genomes of only two tardigrade species are available i.e. Hypsibius exemplaris Gąsiorek, Stec, Morek & Michalczyk, 2018 [27] (in earlier works misidentified as Hys. dujardini (Doyère, 1840) [28] and Ramazzottius varieornatus Bertolani & Kinchin, 1993 [29-32], both representing the eutardigrade lineage [33]. The genomes enabled identification of proteins significant for tardigrade anhydrobiosis including some intrinsically disordered proteins regarded as unique for tardigrades (for review, see [26, 34, 35]). Moreover, both genomes allowed for comparative transcriptomics that corroborates experimental data indicating that different evolutionary tardigrade lineages may exhibit unique physiological and molecular adaptations to survive anhydrobiosis [36]. Accordingly, Ram. varieornatus is regarded as more tolerant to anhydrobiosis than Hys. exemplaris [13, 26, 37–39]. Nevertheless, Hys. exemplaris is one of the best studied tardigrade species, with its name “exemplaris” referring to the widespread use of the species as a laboratory model for various types of studies, ranging from developmental and evolutionary biology, through physiology and anatomy to astrobiology (e.g. [27, 40–44]).

It is frequently suggested that Hys. exemplaris requires a period of preconditioning to mobilize protectants needed to undergo a successful anhydrobiosis. However, the available protocols are based on different time windows and values of relative humidity (RH) for the preconditioning and dehydration. They also differ in the applied walking surface substratum as well as rehydration process and the reported levels of recovery following rehydration ranging between ca. 22 and 100% (e.g. [37, 39, 40, 45–47]). The second approach consists in slow dehydration under conditions of decreased RH but the recovery is not stated [48]. Therefore, we decided to verify the anhydrobiotic capabilities of Hys. exemplaris, which is crucial for the species applicability as a model in research of anhydrobiosis. For this purpose, we tested three different protocols, i.e. the protocol based on preconditioning, published by [49], our own protocol that we also use for other tardigrade species [50] and based on slow dehydration as well as a third one we termed “environmental drying” applied in two variants, using moist fine sand or a pond sediment as substrates. Fine sand and pond sediments are natural habitats for freshwater tardigrades including Hys. exemplaris [23, 27, 51], which motivated our decision to use of them as inorganic and organic drying substrates respectively. The obtained results indicate that in Hys. exemplaris anhydrobiosis, slow dehydration may be a better strategy than preconditioning. However, despite being a useful model in studies of other aspects of tardigrade biology, Hys. exemplaris appears not to be a good model for anhydrobiosis research because of the process of storage cells’ degeneration in tuns.

Materials and methods

Hypsibius exemplaris rearing

Hypsibius exemplaris Z151 strain (Fig 1) was purchased from Sciento (Manchester, United Kingdom) in 2015. To maintain the culture, specimens were kept in POL EKO KK 115 TOP+ climate chamber (photoperiod 12h light/12h dark, 20°C, relative humidity (RH) of 50% on Petri-dishes (55 mm in diameter) with their bottoms scratched using sandpaper to allow movement of tardigrades. They were covered with a thin layer of the culture medium obtained by mixing double-distilled water and spring water (Żywiec Zdrój S.A., Poland) in ratio of 3 to 1. Chlorella vulgaris Beijerinck 1890 [52] (SAG211-11b strain) was served as a food once per week after the dish cleaning. Animals were transferred to a new culture dishes every few months (for details see [53]). The algae strain was kindly provided by Marcin Dziuba (Department of Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland) and was obtained from the culture collection of algae (Sammlung von Algenkulturen (SAG)) at the University of Göttingen, Germany.

Fig 1

Scheme of the experimental setup of A and B protocols used for ultrastructural analyzes.

Protocol A is represented by the sketch of preconditioning procedure and protocol B by a plate used for slow dehydration. A. small plastic box with lid; B. 2% agar-coated lids of Petri dishes (“agar plates”); C. scaffold for agar plates; D. a glass watch dish containing 10% glycerol solution; E-F. digital hygrometer; TEM, transmission electron microscopy; 0, 1 and 2, the distinguished three stages of degeneration of storage cells in typical tuns. High definition images obtained using TEM analysis, with relevant scale bars added, are presented in Fig 3.

Anhydrobiosis protocols

For tun formation, fully active (displaying coordinated movements of the body and legs) adult Hys. exemplaris specimens of medium body length (approximately 200–250 μm) were extracted from the culture. After removal of debris, tun formation was performed using three different protocols, designated as A, B and C. In all protocols tardigrades were starved for one day before the protocol beginning. In protocol A, provided by Boothby [49], specimens were transferred onto 2% agar-coated lids of Petri dishes of 3.5 cm in diameter, in the minimal amount of the culture medium. The lids, termed “agar plates”, were transferred for 16 h to a humidified chamber with RH 92%, obtained by application of 10% glycerol solution in a small plastic box with a lid (Fig 1). After the preconditioning, the agar plates were transferred to POL EKO KK 115 TOP+ chamber and kept in 40% RH for 24 h. Then, obtained tuns were kept in a desiccator for 7 days at 22% RH. All stages of tun formation were performed at controlled temperature of 20°C. Protocol B consisted in application of slow dehydration of specimens by transferring them into 3.5 cm (in diameter) covered and vented Petri dishes with filter paper CHEMLAND 150 (06-00A102.150) placed on their bottom (Fig 1). Specimens were transferred in 400 μl of the culture medium and were left to dry slowly in the Q-Cell incubator (40–50% RH, 20°C) for 72 h. The obtained tuns were kept in the incubator for 7 days. Protocol C, termed “environmental drying” was applied in two variants, i.e. C1 and C2. In both variants specimens were placed, together with 400 μl of the culture medium, into 3.5 cm (in diameter), covered Petri dishes containing ca. 5 ml of previously autoclaved (121°C, 20 minutes, 100 kPa) substrate and were left to dry in Q-Cell incubator (40–50% RH, 20°C) for 72 h. The dishes were kept in incubator for 7 days following drying of the substrate. In protocol C1 the substrate consisted of terrarium fine sand (Vitapol), with ca 3 ml of the culture medium added to moisturize it, while in protocol C2 sediment collected from a pond near the Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland (52° 28’ 7.3956"N; 16° 56’ 1.356"E), containing soil and decomposing plant matter was used as the substrate. The numbers of specimens and repeats used for estimation of survival rate as well as substratum for each of the applied protocols are summarized in Table 1. In the case of the A and B protocols, each plate contained five additional specimens for tuns’ photography under stereomicroscope and tuns’ ultrastructure analysis under transmission electron microscopy (see below). In the case of the C1 and C2 protocols, microscopic analysis of tuns was impossible due to the applied walking surface substratum which made observation and extraction of tuns impossible.

Table 1

Summary of the applied anhydrobiosis protocols.

In the case of A and B protocols, each plate contained five additional specimens for tuns’ photography under stereomicroscope and tuns’ ultrastructure analysis under transmission electron microscopy.

Protocol	Quantitative details	Mode of dehydration	Substratum
A.	10 repeats, each for 20 individuals	preconditioning	agar layer
	(20 specimens per plate)
B.	5 repeats, each for 50 individuals	slow dehydration	filter paper
	(50 specimens per plate)
C1.	5 repeats, each for 50 individuals	environmental drying	moist fine sand
	(50 specimens per plate)
C2.	5 repeats, each for 50 individuals	environmental drying	sediment from the pond
	(50 specimens per plate)

The animals’ survival rate after 24 h following rehydration was observed in small glass cubes under the stereomicroscope (Olympus SZX7 and SZ51). In case of A and B protocols, the rehydration was performed by addition of 2 ml of the culture medium to each dish. Tuns were then transferred from their dishes to separate glass cubes and kept at 20 °C, and 40–50% RH. In the case of C1 and C2 protocols, contents of each dish were placed in larger Petri dish filled with culture medium to allow extraction of animals to the separate glass cube kept at 20 °C, and 40–50% RH. Successful survival was defined as the presence of coordinated movements of animal body and legs (crawling). Statistical significance of results was tested using unpaired t-test.

Tun microscopic analysis

Tun formation by application of protocols A and B was observed under an Olympus SZ61 stereomicroscope connected to Olympus UC30 microscope digital camera. Randomly selected representative tuns were photographed on agar plates using the stereomicroscope. Tuns obtained by protocol B before transferring to agar plates were fixed in solution of 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) at room temperature for 2 minutes. The fixation of the tuns was necessary to extract them from the filter paper fibres. Tardigrades penetrate the filter paper fibres during tun formation and the tuns cannot be removed without the filter paper being wet. Thus, the use of a fixative prevents rehydration of specimens and allows removal of the tuns from the dried filter paper.

Out of tuns obtained by protocols A and B, 10 tunes were randomly selected for each of the protocols to perform ultrastructure analysis under transmission electron microscope (TEM). Tuns were selected just before rehydration and then fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde prepared in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4, 4°C, 24 h), postfixed in 2% osmium tetroxide in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4, 4°C, 1.5 h), dehydrated and embedded according to the protocol by [41]. The material was cut into ultrathin (50 nm) sections on a Leica Ultracut UCT25 ultramicrotome. These sections were mounted on formvar covered copper grids, stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and analyzed with use of a Hitachi H500 transmission electron microscope at 75 kV.

Results and discussion

Applied anhydrobiosis protocols result in formation of correct tuns, but differ in survival rate

The applied anhydrobiosis protocols differed from each other at tun formation (dehydration procedure) while the rehydration procedure was similar (Table 1). As shown in Fig 2, reasonable survival rate, defined as coordinated movements of the body and legs (crawling) after 24 h following rehydration, was observed for protocol B (slow dehydration on filter paper). In the case of protocol C1 (environmental drying in sterile moist fine sand) survival was variable whereas in the case of protocol A (preconditioning on agar layer) and C2 (environmental drying in pond sediment) survival was very low. To explain these differences in survival rate we decided to check the appearance of formed tuns. It should be mentioned that for C1 and C2 protocols, microscopic analysis of tuns was impossible due to the applied walking surface substratum which made observation and extraction of tuns impossible. As shown in the research scheme presented in Fig 1, protocols A and B led to contraction of the body and withdrawal of legs into the body cavity accompanied by loss of water from the body, resulting in a distinctly shrunken body shape and the body size between ca.100-130 μm. The latter is in the range of the body compaction observed for Hys. exemplaris tuns [47]. Thus, the protocols allowed for formation of tuns with typical appearance. However, the typical appearance did not guarantee successful return to full activity after rehydration following 7 days spent in a tun stage. Thus, typical appearance of tuns cannot be regarded as indicative of successful anhydrobiosis for Hys. exemplaris specimens. Therefore, we decided to analyse ultrastructure of ten randomly selected typical tuns obtained both by A and B protocols.

Fig 2

Survival rate of Hys. exemplaris specimens after 7 days in tun stage.

The survival rate corresponds to percentage of specimens able to return to full activity after 24 h following rehydration. A, B, C1 and C2—symbols assigned to applied anhydrobiosis protocols. A, preconditioning on agar; B, slow dehydration on filter paper; C1, environmental drying in moist fine sand; C2, environmental drying in pond sediment. Data represent mean values ± SEM (see also Table 1). ***p < 0.001; n/s, not statistically significant.

Typical tun appearance does not rule out degeneration of storage cells at ultrastructural level

Ultrastructural analysis of tuns was performed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The analysis was based on storage cells, which are regarded as useful for ultrastructure analysis aimed to estimate possibility of successful return of tuns to active life, due to the cells being described as a factor affecting survival rates during anhydrobiosis [54]. Accordingly, the cells are described as the main form of energy storage, enabling a proper nutrient regime for different tissues as well as providing protection to tissues by producing protective metabolites [19, 55, 56]. Moreover, it has been shown that energetic support is also important during the tun stage [57]. Therefore, we assumed that tuns that were to survive should have had the correct ultrastructure of these cells, enabling their proper function also during/after rehydration. Out of tuns obtained by protocols A and B, 10 tuns were randomly selected for each of the protocols. The obtained TEM images of storage cells allowed to assign three stages of degeneration of these cells in typical tuns: 0—cells with no signs of degeneration; 1—cells with the first signs of degeneration; 2—cells with highly advanced degeneration (Fig 3 and Table 2). In stage 0, the storage cells had oval or ameboid shape and their electron-dense cytoplasm was filled with spheres of reserve material. Between the spheres, ribosomes, cisterns of rough endoplasmic reticulum, and shrunken mitochondria with electron dense matrix were visible (Fig 3A and 3B). As stated by Richaud et al. [47], mitochondria in tuns appear to have shorter cristae of the inner mitochondrial membrane and because oxidative phosphorylation occurs mostly in the deeply invaginated cristae it can be assumed that autophagy allows tardigrades to survive starvation. Accordingly, autophagosomes were observed sporadically in stage 0 (Fig 3A). In stage 1, the storage cells had the same shape and ultrastructure as described for stage 0, but in their cytoplasm, single vacuoles and autophagosomes appeared (Fig 3C). Accordingly, in the distinguished stage 2, the storage cells underwent severe vacuolization, and in their cytoplasm numerous autophagosomes were observed, and some of the autophagosomes were also disintegrated (Fig 3D and 3E). Moreover, the cell membrane of some cells was degraded (Fig 3E) and mitochondria had electron lucent matrix (Fig 3D). The latter is observed for damaged mitochondria with impaired functionality (e.g. [58]), which may result in cell death. All the stages were observed for storage cells in tuns obtained by protocol B, i.e. out of 10 analysed tuns, five displayed features of stage 0, two of stage 1, and three of stage 2, whereas for storage cells in tuns obtained by protocol A only stage 2 was observed (Table 2). Interestingly, these observations correlated with the survival rate determined for tuns obtained by A and B protocols (Fig 2). Thus, it could be concluded that in the case of protocols A and B, tardigrades forming tuns without visible degeneration of storage cells appear to be able to successfully return to active life. Thus, it can be assumed that the state of storage cells in tuns could be indicative of successful anhydrobiosis. Nevertheless, ultrastructure analysis of other cell types would strengthen this conclusion, i.e. digestive cells, epidermal cells and oocytes.

Fig 3

Ultrastructure of storage cells in tuns of Hys. exemplaris.

A-B. Storage cells in stage 0—cells with no signs of degeneration: au–autophagosome rm- reserve material, sc—storage cell, black arrow—cisternae of rough endoplasmic reticulum, white arrow—mitochondrion; A. scale = 0.38 μm; B. scale = 0.23 μm; C. Storage cells in stage 1– cells with the first signs of degeneration: au–autophagosome rm- reserve material, sc—storage cell, v- vacuole, black arrow—cisternae of rough endoplasmic reticulum, white arrow—mitochondrion; scale = 0.41 μm; D-E. Storage cells in stage 2– cells with highly advanced degeneration: au–autophagosome, dau—disintegrated autophagosome, rm- reserve material, sc—storage cell, v–vacuole, black arrow—cisternae of rough endoplasmic reticulum, white arrow—mitochondrion, arrowhead–degraded cell membrane; D. scale = 0.29 μm; E. scale = 0.56 μm (see also Table 2).

Table 2

Summary of ultrastructural analysis of storage cells in typical tuns.

For the analysis, 10 tuns obtained by protocol A and 10 tuns obtained by protocol B were randomly selected.

Protocol	degeneration stage	Description	Approx. percentage [%]
A	2	highly advanced degeneration	100
B	0	no signs of degeneration	50
	1	first signs of degradation	20
	2	highly advanced degeneration	30

According to our knowledge, it is the first report indicating possibility of degeneration of storage cells in Hys. expemplaris tuns of typical appearance, resulting in their decreased survival. Available data on Hys. exemplaris tuns of comparable duration [47] concern only tuns of classical cellular structure. Moreover, the functional state of anhydrobiotic Hys. exemplaris storage cells has not been studied yet although the cells are known to accumulate polysaccharides and lipids (e.g. [42]), and to be related to anhydrobiosis success because of their role of energy supplier (e.g. [19, 55]). We can assume that the observed damage to mitochondria may distinctly impair their role. However, it should be mentioned that in different tardigrade species the effect of anhydrobiosis on storage cells may be different as reflected by differences in changes of storage cells’ size observed after dehydration [56]. Moreover, our data indicate that preconditioning is not a necessary element of Hys. exemplaris anhydrobiosis protocol as slow dehydration appears to provide even a better outcome. It should be remembered that application of different definitions of Hys. exemplaris recovery from the tun stage may hinder the comparison of the applied protocol effectiveness. For example there is a difference between “We defined recovered animals as those exhibiting spontaneous movements or at least responding to touch stimuli”[37] and the approach applied in this report, i.e. “coordinated movements of the body and legs (crawling)”. Additionally, some of the available papers do not contain clear definition of the recovery (e.g. [46]), estimation of survival rate [48] or the indication of time window for survival estimation following rehydration [39] as well as duration of anhydrobiosis [37, 39, 45, 48].

Summing up, Hys. exemplaris is able to form tuns of typical appearance, but the process of storage cells degeneration decreases the tun survival distinctly. Thus, the species does not appear to be a good model in anhydrobiosis research.

10 Jan 2022

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcos Rubal García, PhD

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 Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[These studies were supported by the research grant of National Science Centre, Poland, NCN 2016/21/B/NZ4/00131. The technical contribution of Kamil Janelt is highly appreciated.

Studies have been conducted in the framework of activities of BARg (Biodiversity and Astrobiology Research group).]

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:

[These studies were supported by the research grant of National Science Centre, Poland, NCN 2016/21/B/NZ4/00131.]

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

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This manuscript describes several alternative ways to dehydrate tardigrades of the species Hypsibius exemplaris. The alternative means used are interesting but the manuscript lacks precision in the motivation of these experimental choices. The quality of the images presented does not fully support the conclusions presented in the manuscript and needs to be improved.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

In this manuscript, authors used the tardigrade Hypsibius exemplaris and three dehydration protocols to study the shape of the tuns, the ultrastructure of the storage cells and the survival during rehydration.

After seven days, the three anhydrobiosis protocols used in this study showed variable efficiency in the formation of viable tun. The transmission electron microscopy analysis of tuns specimens showed storage cells degeneration status. Those status can be correlated with variable efficiency in the formation of viable tun. Propawa et al. concluded that only tuns without visible degeneration of storage cells are able to support a successful rehydration process.

This manuscript needs major revisions. Indeed, the poor quality of the pictures doesn’t allow to conclude anything.

Specific comments:

Text:

1. Line 84: There is no reference or accurate description of the experimental protocol for “environmental drying”. Why did authors choose these two substrates?

2. Line 96: Propawa et al. used "double-distilled water and Spring water" instead of the classical Chalkley medium (http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2018/11/pdb.prot102319.full). Please justify this choice.

3. Line 108: In this work, authors mentioned Boothby’s protocol (http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2018/11/pdb.prot102327.full.pdf). In this protocol, tardigrades are starved a day before dehydration. In the present work, it’s not described? Please specify if a starvation was conducted.

4. Line 125: Propawa et al. described a terrarium sand substrate.

Line 128: Authors described a substrate consisting of soil and decomposed plants.

I have the same remark as point 1. Why did they choose these two substrates?

5. Line 148 + Line 151: Authors mentioned twice the same fixation protocol with 2.5% glutaraldehyde. Only one is enough.

6. Line 150 to Line 153: Protocols A and B are totally different.

Tuns obtained by protocol A were photographed on agar plates using an Olympus SZ61 stereomicroscope.

Tuns obtained using protocol B were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, mounted in a drop of water on a slide, covered by coverslip, and photographed with the use of Olympus BX60 stereomicroscope and OLYMPUS DP50 camera.

It is impossible to compare both specimens.

7. Line 154: Authors indicated that 10 specimens were analyzed. Is it 10 specimens in total or 10 specimens per experimental condition? It is not clear. Indeed, line 131, 5 specimens are mentioned.

8. Lines 175 to 177: Propawa et al. describe Figure 1. As indicated in another comments (comment on figure 1 and point 6), the quality of these pictures is not sufficient to compare the two protocols and protocols are not comparable. A figure 1 modification is required.

9. Line 181: Same question as the point 7. Please clarify the number of tardigrades.

10. Line 186: TEM ultrastructural analysis of specimen integrity is based only on storage cells according to a previous study in another species (Czernekova, 2018). Is the analysis of a single cell type sufficient?

11. Line 192: Authors describe mitochondria in Figure 3A. But the quality of the picture needs to be improved. This figure doesn’t allow to observe the state of the mitochondria or mitochondria cristae. We can’t conclude anything on mitochondria with this figure.

12. Line 194: Authors describe for Figure 3B: "single vacuole and autophagosomes appeared". But, according to me, we can also observe a vacuole in stage O.

13. Line 198: Like above, a better image quality is required to allow conclusions.

14. Line 212: " ca” should be replaced by "can".

Figures:

Figure 1: The quality of the two tuns pictures is insufficient. Images are totally different and cannot be compared to each other. As described in the M&M section, two different stereomicroscopes are used. The exposure for the two pictures is also different. The picture for the protocol B doesn’t allow to correctly observe the tun. The resolution is not sufficient.

For the storage cells TEM pictures, we don’t have scale bar.

Figure 3: The quality of pictures needs to be improved. Status of mitochondria or cristae for exemple are not clearly distinguishable.

Figures captions:

Figure 1: A description of tuns in the middle of the figure is required. And it’s precisely pictures that cannot be compared.

Figure 2: Statistical t-test is necessary. The test is mentioned in the M&M section but we can’t find the result in the rest of the paper.

Figure 3: Scale bars are very different between pictures (0.38um, 0.53um, 0.42um,…). For an easy and good reading of images, it is necessary to homogenize the scale bars.

**********

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: No

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.

Submitted filename: Propawa-et-al-Review-2021-1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Feb 2022

Dear Editor,

All our comments and corrections to the revised manuscript are included into attached files.

Kind Regards,

Łukasz Kaczmarek

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Feb 2022

Verification of Hypsibius exemplaris Gąsiorek et al., 2018 (Eutardigrada; Hypsibiidae) application in anhydrobiosis research

PONE-D-21-37709R1

Dear Dr. Kaczmarek,

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,

Marcos Rubal García, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all my comments and remarks. They increased explanations concerning their experimental choices. They also improved the quality of images as suggested. In its present form, the paper can be accepted for publication.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

10 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-37709R1

Verification of Hypsibius exemplaris Gąsiorek et al., 2018 (Eutardigrada; Hypsibiidae) application in anhydrobiosis research

Dear Dr. Kaczmarek:

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. Marcos Rubal García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE