Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 28, 2025 |
|---|
|
Response to ReviewersRevised Manuscript with Track ChangesManuscript Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002 Journal Requirements: 1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full. At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Hui Yao, Qian Qi, Dan Gou, Simin Liang, Stephen Ferguson, Heng Zhang, Zi Ye, and Feng Liu. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form. The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions 2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019. 3) Your manuscript is missing the following sections: Results. Please ensure all required sections are present and in the correct order. Make sure section heading levels are clearly indicated in the manuscript text, and limit sub-sections to 3 heading levels. An outline of the required sections can be consulted in our submission guidelines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission 4) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figures 5) We have noticed that you have cited Table Table S2 in the manuscript file but there is no corresponding table in the manuscript. Please amend your manuscript to include this table noting that tables should not be uploaded as individual files. 6) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 7) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form. Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. Potential Copyright Issues: i) Please confirm (a) that you are the photographer of 1E, 1F, 2, 3, and 4, or (b) provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photo(s) under our CC BY 4.0 license. ii) Figures 8A, and 8C. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art: - https://commons.wikimedia.org 8) In the online submission form, you indicated that All materials used in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository 2. Within the manuscript itself 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues. 9) Kindly revise your competing statement to align with the journal's style guidelines: 'The authors declare that there are no competing interests.' Reviewers' comments: Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance? As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #1: Objective need to be added clearly and reduce introduction Reviewer #2: The methods are clear, detailed and sound. Reviewer #3: Would there be an effect on the experiment when using sucrose water rather than the WHO recommended glucose water for feeding adult mosquitos? Was there ethical clearance for blood feeding assay and host preference assay. Which blood meal source was used to rear the Aedes colony at the Shenzhen Bay Laboratory Insectary? ********** Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: The figures are good quality Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Well presented ********** Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #1: see for some adjusted in my detail comments Reviewer #2: Yes, the conclusions made are supported by the data presented. The limitations of the study are missing. Reviewer #3: Well supported conclusions. ********** Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The manuscript submitted by Yao and co-authors unveils the Odorant co-receptor (Orco) cellular localization patterns, developmental expression dynamics and impact on olfactory behavior of the Aedes albopictus mosquito. Authors have demonstrated the importance of Orco in the olfactory architecture of Ae. albopictus and its role in host-seeking behavior, which is a great milestone. Overall, the manuscript is well written and the data generated here is relevant to the vector research community. However, minor changes can be made before acceptance for publication. Major comments In the methods, I miss the rationale of using mice instead of a human subject for the blood-feeding assay. Page 3 line 75-78: Rephase Page 9 line 360-361: I also miss the rationale of having different starvation times for the blood-feeding (12hrs) and host preference assay (24hrs ) in page 10 line 377. Page 9 line 342-343: Six libraries were generated. Are the transcriptomes available to the public? Page 12 line 454: “AalbOrco expression in the labella was exclusively localized to ORNs with…” Do you mean for females or males? Page 14 line 561: I believe it is not accurate to state that “We observed a significant decline in blood-feeding efficiency in AalbOrcoDsRed/DsRed mutants compared to the wildtype mosquitoes”. While the p-value may indicate significance, the double mutants have a feeding efficiency of about 50%, which is more than half of the wild type. There is a relative reduction in feeding efficiency in the double mutants, but these results might also differ if the feeding assay is repeated with human subjects, who are the preferred hosts. Then it would be more relevant from a public health perspective. I believe the data shows feeding success rather than efficiency. A box plot might also present the data better. Figure 3: The scales have the same numerical value but different lengths. Figure 6A: Include the results for the diluent. In the results and figures indicate whether its female/male or mutant/wildtype mosquito tha were used for results presented. Were there any notable changes in general behavior and probing frequency in the mutants as compared to the controls? Minor comments Page 5 line 153: I guess you mean lesser-studied species instead of lesser-studies. Page 5 line 181: Can read “7-day-old non-blood-fed females” instead of “7-day-old without blood meal fed..” Page 7 line 272: Do you mean mutant females or wildtype? Page 9 line 343: “three repeats…..” should read “three replicates” Page 9 line 353: “FPKM” to “FPKM counts” Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #1: Hui Yao et al, The manuscript entitled: Unveiling the Developmental Dynamics and Functional Role of Odorant Receptor Coreceptor (Orco) in Aedes albopictus: A Novel Mechanism for Regulating Tuning Odorant Receptor Expression The authors described and elucidated the expression and role of Orco in Aedes albopictus olfaction and showed its tissue and developmental expression they also showed reduced expression of most Ors when Orco is knockdown, but the Irs and Grs, which are independent of Orco remains unaffected. Similarly, response of Ors significantly reduced but Irs response to tested acids remain unaffected, which is expected as Orco is conserved both in its expression and function. Q1. However, there are interesting results two Or115 and Or85 over expressed as compared to wildtype in SBTII and their response is significantly high, the speculation is not convincing as Orco role is highly conserved, may be unintended consequence, artifact specifically in that sensilla, may be give a better speculation. Q2. EAG: how inhibition happens in EAG Fig 6B, is that normalized EAG as response of treatment-solvent?? Q3. Fig 8D: Preference index is not clear, feeding(Fig 8B) is fine even though it is reduced, the figure shows preference shitted from human to mouse, I was expecting undifferentiated response to both sides, but now the mutant responded to mouse than human , that is why the response index is negative Q4. Did you try how is the response of either physiology or behaviour of heterozygous individuals? Q5. What is the control for the mutation like parental control? Q6. Any adverse effect on lifespan, reproduction of the Orco mutation? Q7. Line 66-68 ........efficiency, and elimination of host preference in females, there is no elimination they are feeding 50% of them fed( Fig 8B) but host preference shift is observed but no elimination Q8. Line 491: While GRs are generally considered absent from antennal expression. Correction: Grs are expressed in a given sensilla found on antenna, need to be rewritten Minor Introduction: too long introduction summarize the story by mentioning the why of the experiment Terminology: Tuning Odorant Receptor Expression, the word tuning should be deleted Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: This study delivers a comprehensive spatiotemporal map of Orco expression and function in a the mosquito, revealing its dual role as an olfactory co-receptor and transcriptional stabilizer in Aedes albopictus and offering new avenues for disrupting host-seeking behavior. Line 593 "the relatively less complex chemical environment of the aquatic system" This statement would require expounding on the 'less complex'. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No Figure resubmission:Reproducibility:--> -->-->To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols-->?> |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Liu, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Unveiling the Developmental Dynamics and Functional Role of Odorant Receptor Co-receptor (Orco) in Aedes albopictus: A Novel Mechanism for Regulating Tuning Odorant Receptor Expression' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Paul O. Mireji, PhD Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Paul Mireji Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002 *********************************************************** p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none Reviewer's Responses to Questions Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance? As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? <br/> Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: None Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The article is well-organized, and all concerns raised were addressed. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr. Liu, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Unveiling the Developmental Dynamics and Functional Role of Odorant Receptor Co-receptor (Orco) in Aedes albopictus: A Novel Mechanism for Regulating Tuning Odorant Receptor Expression," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Disease |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .