Underwater visual surveys of coral reefs are the primary method managers use to monitor coral health. However, these surveys are limited to visual signs, such as bleaching and tissue loss lesions, which occur only after significant stress has accumulated. More holistic characterization of coral health can allow for better monitoring of reef changes across natural environmental gradients, in response to anthropogenic stress and after disturbance events (e.g. disease outbreaks, mass bleaching, dredging, run-off events). Various methods exist to evaluate the health of the coral holobiont that do not depend on visual signs, including histological assessment, microbiome dysbiosis and metabolic profiles, yet these tools are rarely deployed concurrently. We present a clear, readily deployable protocol for sampling and preserving coral fragments, including (a) extraction of coral metabolites for analysis, (b) preservation of microbiome DNA for sequencing and (c) preservation of coral tissues for histopathology. Combined with visual surveys, these methods provide an unparalleled, holistic characterization of coral health. We provide a field-tested, optimized protocol for conducting coral sampling. This protocol guides the user through concurrent assessments of coral tissue structure and the holobiont microbiome and metabolome, and directs the user to useful resources for downstream data analysis. This protocol facilitates quantitative characterization of coral health beyond visual surveys alone, which is a valuable step forward in reef research and management and will improve our ability to describe, model and mediate impacts to coral reefs.

Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics and microbiome
Review badges
Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics and microbiome
Published in Methods in Ecology and Evolution in September, 2020
Web of Science (Free Access)
Abstract
Authors
Greene, Austin; Leggat, William; Donahue, Megan J.; Raymundo, Aurie J.; Caldwell, Jamie M.; Moriarty, Tess; Heron, Scott F.; Ainsworth, Tracy D.
Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
- 3 authors
- 1 editor
- 1 reviewer
- Contribute
- pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
Decision Letter
2020/06/0303-Jun-2020
MEE-20-02-110.R1 Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics, and microbiome
Dear Austin Greene,
It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript entitled "Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics, and microbiome" in its current form for publication in Methods in Ecology and Evolution. The comments of the reviewers who reviewed your manuscript are included below. Final instructions for your manuscript, and some promotion options, can be found at the end of this email.
Thank you for your fine contribution. On behalf of all Editors of Methods in Ecology and Evolution, I look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.
Sincerely,
Professor Robert B. O'Hara
Senior Editor, Methods in Ecology and EvolutionReply to:
Ms India Stephenson
Methods in Ecology and Evolution Editorial Office
coordinator@methodsinecologyandevolution.orgWhy not become a member of the British Ecological Society? https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/jointhebes
Associate Editor Comments to Author:
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author:
Thank you for addressing the reviewer's concerns and suggestions. The manuscript reads very well and will be informative for readers. Please do add a word in the acknowledgements about peer-review input.Best wishes,
Jana McPherson
Associate Editor, Methods in Ecology and EvolutionReviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Author Response
2020/05/21Dear Methods in Ecology and Evolution Editorial Board,
Please find attached our revised manuscript entitled “Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics, and microbiome” by Austin Greene, William Leggat, Megan J. Donahue, Laurie J. Raymundo, Jamie M. Caldwell, Tess Moriarty, Scott F. Heron, and Tracy D. Ainsworth. We have also attached updated Supporting Information documents.
After requests for minor revisions by the Editor, Associate Editor, and Reviewer 2, we have revised the manuscript and ask that it be considered for publication as a practical tool article in Methods in Ecology and Evolution. We believe all reviewing parties provided valuable constructive feedback and we have responded to each request in-line as bolded text in the document below. Having incorporated these changes, we feel that the manuscript has improved clarity and scope over the original document and is suitable for further review.
The information and schematics in this article have not been published elsewhere, and this manuscript has not been submitted or reviewed by another journal. All authors of this work declare having no conflicts of interest and agree to the submission. We hope you will consider our work for publication in Methods in Ecology and Evolution.
Sincerely,
Austin Greene, on behalf of all authors
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
Kaneohe, HI 96744Cite this author response
- pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
Decision Letter
2020/05/0303-May-2020
MEE-20-02-110 Complementary sampling methods for coral histology, metabolomics, and microbiome
Dear Austin Greene,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Methods in Ecology and Evolution. I have now received the reviewers' reports and a recommendation from the Associate Editor who handled the review process. Copies of their reports are included below. As you will see, the reviewers are positive about the value of the work but have also made a number of suggestions for improvement. I have considered your paper in light of the comments received and I would like to invite you to prepare a minor revision.
In your revision, please make sure that you take full account of the above comments and those made in the reports below. Please note that Methods in Ecology and Evolution does not automatically accept papers after revision, and an invitation to revise a manuscript does not represent commitment to eventual publication on our part. We will reject revised manuscripts if they are returned without satisfactory responses to the reviewers' comments. When returning the revised paper, please show point-by-point how you have dealt with the various comments in the appropriate section of the submission form.
Please return your revision by 24-May-2020. If you need longer, please let us know so we can update our system accordingly. Before resubmitting your manuscript, please read through the resubmission instructions below.
We look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Sincerely,
Professor Robert B. O'Hara
Senior Editor, Methods in Ecology and EvolutionReply to:
Mr Chris Grieves
Methods in Ecology and Evolution Editorial Office
coordinator@methodsinecologyandevolution.orgAssociate Editor Comments to Author:
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript as a Practical Tools paper. Two reviewers have now provided feedback and diverge widely in their views. My own sense is that your manuscript is well written and provides a valuable protocol for researchers and field crews. A few clarifications may be needed both for the protocol and for potential nuances or limitations that require discussion. One reviewer provides a thorough list of suggestions for improvements to add to my own three suggestions below. In addition to tackling these suggestions, I would also like to encourage the authors to look for and, where appropriate, reference grey literature such as technical reports and institutional sampling protocols. This to acknowledge that major sampling institutions, such as relevant government agencies, may have had long-standing discussions on this topic and adapted their sampling protocols accordingly.Best wishes,
Jana McPherson
Associate Editor, Methods in Ecology and EvolutionDetailed Suggestions
Figure 3 It is not entirely clear how you get from 10 healthy and 10 diseased colonies sampled to 60 samples at the bottom of in step 1. I gather it’s because each diseased colony sampled yields 2 actual samples and each healthy colony yields one, but that only gets me to 30. Perhaps you could help the reader by including captions not just on # colonies sampled, but also # samples taken; in panel C, should it say 20 colonies sampled under outbreak T0?L 206 As you point out in your introduction, visual signs cannot reliably tell if a colony is already stressed, as they manifest later in the process. It would seem wise, therefore, not to assume that healthy looking tissue is healthy, and change or sterilize equipment between each colony. I understand the challenges associated given you are sampling underwater, but who wants to be the researcher that contributed to spreading a disease that then devastates the reef. Recommending a precautionary approach here and some advice on how to go about it in practical terms would be good.
References: some may need checking. E.g. Meyer et al 2019 and Legendre et al 2017 seem to be missing the journal titles; Raymundo et al 2008 and Swanson et al 2018 lack details on publisher/source; please check carefully throughout.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1Comments to the Corresponding Author
Although an interesting contribution to science the MS is not innovative. A methodological narrative outlining the application of complementary approaches to understand coral physiology and help establish disease etiology. This notion has been repeatedly addressed in the past. Application of the aforementioned methodology in a case study manuscript would be of greater value.Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Corresponding Author
Please find my comments in the attached file.Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2020/04/15Please find my comments in the attached file.
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Reviewer report
2020/03/17Although an interesting contribution to science the MS is not innovative. A methodological narrative outlining the application of complementary approaches to understand coral physiology and help establish disease etiology. This notion has been repeatedly addressed in the past. Application of the aforementioned methodology in a case study manuscript would be of greater value.
Reviewed by
Cite this review