ERRATUM Open AccessErratum to: Minimization of extracellular space asa driving force in prokaryote association and theorigin of eukaryotesScott L Hooper * and Helaine J BursteinAbstractFollowing the publication of this article [1] it was noticed that, due to an error on the part of the publisher, the 2ndround of comments submitted by Reviewer 1, Dr. López-García, were unintentionally omitted during the peerreview process. As a consequence of this error, the authors were unable to reply to Dr. López-García’s commentsand subsequently revise their manuscript accordingly (where appropriate).In fairness to both the authors and reviewer, Dr. López-García’s (Reviewer 1) 2nd round of comments are now includedbelow and Scott L Hooper and Helaine J Burstein (author) were given the opportunity to reply. Any consequentamendments to the research article [1] are outlined in the author’s replies.Reviewers’ commentsReviewer 1: Dr. Purificación López-García (Unité d’Ecologie,Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, UniversitéParis-Sud, 91405, Orsay, France)2nd round commentsReviewer 1: The authors have made a significant effortto improve their manuscript, removing or toning downseveral unjustified assumptions and better explainingsome of their points. Nevertheless, several of my previousremarks are still valid; the reader will judge whether theauthors have succeeded in addressing them.Author reply: We feel it is important to address the state-ment that we “remov[ed] or ton[ed] down several unjustifiedassumptions” in response to the first round of reviewercomments. It is true that, in response to the first round of re-viewer comments, we increased the length of the explana-tions of many points in the manuscript and substantiallyrewrote the Ignicoccus hospitalis and ADP/ATP transportsections, as these sections were originally badly explained.These changes materially improved the article and we againthank both reviewers for their input. However, we in no cases“remov[ed] or ton[ed] down” any part of the manuscript.Readers do not have access to the original submission, butwe have compared the original and published versions. Noideas from the original were removed in the review process,and, far from having “toned down” our arguments, the in-puts from the reviewers, by pointing out where we had notprovided sufficient explanation, have in all cases resulted inour making our arguments stronger.Reviewer 1: I will only make three additional comments:1) The authors reject the idea that a prokaryote becomesendosymbiont in another cell because “Successful saltatoryinternalization of a symbiont into the host cytoplasm there-fore requires either that all symbiont processes dependingon nonrespiratory ion flow suddenly and simultaneouslybecome able to function with these altered current flows,or that all ion-concentration sensitive processes in sym-biont cytoplasm suddenly and simultaneously become ableto function in a very different ionic environment, bothhighly unlikely events” (p.8). Then they use the adaptationof fish from marine to freshwater systems as analogy to ex-plain how complex is to adapt to a lower salinity environ-ment. However, the analogy is not valid since prokaryotesare very different from multicellular eukaryotes and, as theauthors point out, fish cells “never left the sea, as they arestill surrounded by a high ionic strength environment[blood and other corporal fluids]”. Prokaryotes suddenlyshifting to low ionic media (e.g. transported by dustparticles, animals or any other current means of global* Correspondence: hooper@ohio.eduDepartment of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA© 2015 Hooper and Burstein; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons PublicDomain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in thisarticle, unless otherwise stated.Hooper and Burstein Biology Direct (2015) 10:11 DOI 10.1186/s13062-015-0037-x
