Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of Euplatypus parallelus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodinae)

Gaoke Lei; Yueguan Fu; Wei-Jian Wu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241275

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 15, 2020
22 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Michel Renou, Editor PONE-D-20-18269 Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of Euplatypus parallelus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodidae) PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. This is a nice description of the morphology and the external organization of the antennae of beetle species belonging to a poorly studied group. Note that “ultrastructure” (abstract line 42) is usually used for a description at cellular and infra cellular levels and is not suitable for SEM observations of external cuticular structures. The data are worth to be published. However, the manuscript requires editing for English usage, sentence construction, and grammar. This is a sample of sentences needing revision: line 95 “the cutting end “; line 102: “… and placed antennae…”; line 110 “antennal data were measured”, data are not measured but the output of measurement; line 142 “Sensilla trichodea: they are trichoid sensilla”. Line 54 “Sensilla chaetica: the shape like a thorn” a verb is missing. Line 231 “Among them,STⅠ we found in E. parallelus was similar to that…”. Etc. Some sentences need also revision because of unreliable statements: Line 68-69. I am not convinced that small size and capacity of propagation are a limit to chemical control. Insecticides are efficient against aphids or thrips for instance and the problems come from resistance. Line 93: the scientific name of the tree is missingLines 216-217 “The larger antennae of female adults contained more sensilla and performed better in some functions.” You did not perform a functional study so performance of the female antennae cannot be evaluated. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Michel Renou, Ph.D 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968432819303002?via%3Dihub In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 2 & 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: The authors have done a good job of describing the sensillae on the antenna of the ambrosia beetle Euplatypus parallelus, a desctructive invasive species. However, additional information is needed to support several conclusions. 1) Support for whether SP is a secretory gland or has underlying sensory cells requires either transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of thin sections or SEM imaging of KOH digested thick sections (Bin and Vinson, Int. J. Insect Morphol. and Embryol. 15: 129–138, 1986). 2) Assessment of whether the depressions observed on the surface of sensillae are pores requires either TEM of thin sections or silver staining (Navasero & Elzen, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 93, 737–747, 1991). The manuscript contains many grammatical errors that must be corrected before the paper can be published. Here are the errors I found in just the first 100 lines: 42 ultratructure --> ultrastructure 61 infect --> infecting 83 morphology Scolytinae --> morphology of Scolytinae 85 , this --> . This 95 cutting --> cut 96 the cages --> cages 96-97 and collected the adult beetles emerging from the gallery. --> and the adult beetles emerging from the gallery were collected. 98 , the --> . The ****** 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: Yes:** Robert Renthal [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r001
Revision 1
13 Aug 2020 Author Response Dear editors and reviewers, Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of Euplatypus parallelus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodidae). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction, which we hope to meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following: Editor comments: 1.“Ultrastructure” (abstract line 42) is usually used for a description at cellular and infra cellular levels and is not suitable for SEM observations of external cuticular structures. 2.The manuscript requires editing for English usage, sentence construction, and grammar. 3.Line 68-69, not convinced that small size and capacity of propagation are a limit to chemical control. 4.Line 93, the scientific name of the tree is missing. 5.Lines 216-217, you did not perform a functional study so performance of the female antennae cannot be evaluated. Response: 1.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We are really sorry for the errors in the use of terminology. We refer to the editors’ suggestion and revise “ultrastructure” to “external cuticular structures”. 2.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We are very sorry for our mistakes in English usage, sentence construction, and grammar. We entrusted a professional scientific editing service that edited our manuscript. we would like to express their gratitude to EditSprings (https://www.editsprings.com/) for the expert linguistic services provided. We provided the Editorial certificate in supporting information. 3.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. It is our negligence and we are sorry about “E. parallelus is difficult to control with pesticides because this beetle is small and propagates rapidly”. Depending on comments, related content has been improved, we add “it live hidden away” in the manuscript. 4.We add the scientific name of the tree, Hevea brasiliensis. 5.We agree with the reviewer such you did not perform a functional study so performance of the female antennae cannot be evaluated. Our research is certainly not enough to explain this problem. We have deleted this sentence. Reviewer comments: 1.Support for whether SP is a secretory gland or has underlying sensory cells requires either transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of thin sections or SEM imaging of KOH digested thick sections. 2.Assessment of whether the depressions observed on the surface of sensillae are pores requires either TEM of thin sections or silver staining. 3.The manuscript contains many grammatical errors that must be corrected before the paper can be published. Response: 1.We agree entirely with this suggestion by the reviewer. Our research is certainly not enough to explain this problem. We have deleted this sentence. 1.Acknowledge the reviewer for his valuable suggestions. Our research is certainly not enough to explain this problem. We use either a phylogenetic framework (comparative morphology among species which same in morphology) to discover something new. In the discussion, we inferred their functions by comparing the external cuticular structures of different bark beetles. 2.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We entrusted a professional scientific editing service that edited our manuscript. Attachments We have deposited our laboratory protocols in protocols.io: http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bjjkkkkw Additional requirements: 1.We ensured that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2.In our revision, we addressed some minor overlapping text, and we ensure we cite all our sources. 3.We are very sorry for our mistakes in English usage, sentence construction, and grammar. We entrusted a professional scientific editing service that edited our manuscript. 4.We refer to Figure 2 in our text. 5.We supplemented our tables as part of our main manuscript and remove the individual files. 6.We refer to Tables 2 & 4 in our text. We have uploaded our figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, the details can be found in file “Figure”. We would like to make changes to our financial disclosure: This study was supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest of China (201103026-4) and the Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System (CARS-33-BC2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised. Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Sincerely yours, G.K. Lei Corresponding author: Name: W.J. Wu Laboratory of Insect Ecology South China Agricultural University Guangzhou, 510642 Guangdong, P. R., China E-mail: weijwu@scau.edu.cn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r002
19 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Michel Renou, Editor PONE-D-20-18269R1 Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of <euplatypus parallelus=""> (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodidae) PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it does not meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. The writing still need to be improved in order to better formulate the scientific hypothess and to make the desciption of cuticular structures, the comparisons between species and the speculation about function, clear, informative, and precise. I have also noted misuse of terms and grammar and syntax errors that were not fixed by the linguistic revision. Please, download the annotated pdf for my specific comments that I hope could be helpful, but are not exhaustive.</euplatypus> <euplatypus parallelus=""></euplatypus> Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Michel Renou, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r003
Revision 2
2 Oct 2020 Author Response Dear editors, Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of Euplatypus parallelus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodidae). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction, which we hope to meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as following: Editor comments: 1.The writing still need to be improved in order to better formulate the scientific hypothess and to make the desciption of cuticular structures, the comparisons between species and the speculation about function, clear, informative, and precise. 2.Misuse of terms and grammar and syntax errors that were not fixed by the linguistic revision. Response: 1.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We added the following (325-335) to the discussion to better formulate the scientific hypothess and to make the desciption of cuticular structures, the comparisons between species and the speculation about function, clear, informative, and precise. ST with wall pores are present on the antennae of all insect species ever investigated, such as Coleophora obducta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae), Pseudacteon tricuspis (Diptera: Phoridae), Eupristina sp. (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae), Stephanitis nashi (Hemiptera: Tingidae). In many other beetles Tetropium fuscum (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Tetrigus lewisi Candèze (Coleoptera: Elateridae), Dastarcus helophoroides (Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Bothrideridae), ST has been shown by electrophysiology to be contact pheromone receptor. In some moth species, it has been demonstrated that they function as sex pheromone receptors. Shields and Hildebrand showed that ST of the female Manduca sexta could respond to aromatic or terpenoid odorants. In Drosophila (Diptera) antennae, ST functions as pheromone and plant volatiles receptors. 2.Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We are very sorry for our mistakes in English usage, sentence construction, and grammar. We refer to the editors’ suggestion and revise them in new manuscript. We would like to make changes to our financial disclosure: This study was supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest of China (201103026-4) and the Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System (CARS-33-BC2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised. Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Sincerely yours, G.K. Lei Corresponding author: Name: W.J. Wu Laboratory of Insect Ecology South China Agricultural University Guangzhou, 510642 Guangdong, P. R., China E-mail: weijwu@scau.edu.cn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r004
13 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Michel Renou, Editor Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of <euplatypus parallelus=""> (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodidae) PONE-D-20-18269R2</euplatypus> Dear Dr. Wu, 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, Michel Renou, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Oct 2020 Acceptance Letter - Michel Renou, Editor PONE-D-20-18269R2 Type and distribution of sensilla in the antennae of Euplatypus parallelus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidea, Platypodinae) Dear Dr. Wu: 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 Michel Renou Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241275.r006

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 .