A few more details about the sequencing and bacterial identification if provided in the methods section would improve the clarity of the manuscript. For instance, a line or two about the quality control steps to ensure that the data obtained from genome sequencing, such as read lengths, were interpret-able. Was the bacterial identification based on 16S alone or more that one gene? I realise that a reference has been provided, but a few technical details are worth mentioning in the manuscript itself. Further, though the difference in microbiome between male hydra and others are dramatic enough, given that only 5 hydra polyps were used for this study, it may be prudent to interpret the differences between sexual and asexual stages with caution and this may be indicated in the discussion section.