Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 23, 2021
Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor

PONE-D-21-20406Genetic diversity analysis of invasive gall-pest Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Apodemidae) from ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 23 2021 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bi-Song Yue, 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank Lei Xu and Hantang Wang for insect collection. And thank the subsidization of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31971664, 31560212) and the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (No.2018GXNSFAA294008, 2018GXNSFDA281004).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“We thank the subsidization of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31971664, 31560212) and the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (No.2018GXNSFAA294008, 2018GXNSFDA281004).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. 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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 study and manuscript by Peng et al. are straight-forward, clear and interesting.

Since HAP1 and Hap2 are closely related to each other and the authors suspect that the genetic diversity of linage A may be due to sexual reproduction between linages A and B I think that the study would benefit from further analysis of L. invasa males.

A representative number (N>20) of male samples from each linage should be added to the basin analysis in order to supply a better understanding on the genetic drift of L. invasa.

Reviewer #2: The paper analyzed the genetic diversity of Leptocybe invasa from china. I believe the data of is especially valuable and helpful for research community. However, there are significant corrections which need to be made with regards to the write up, grammar and syntax need to be corrected for readability as the manuscript results are valuable to a diverse range of readers. Furthermore, the figures and tables need to be self-explanatory and thus the description of the figures and tables in the captions need to be revised.

Kindly find my revisions to the grammar within the attached document.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Manuscript-5.pdf
Revision 1

Description of manuscript modifications

PLoS One editorial department:

First, we would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their hard work. The reviewers provided very good modification opinions for the manuscript. The explanations of the revisions made based on the modification opinions put forward by the academic editors and experts follow.

Recommendations of Academic editors:

Please modify and supplement the manuscript according to the format requirements of PLoS One.

Author's response to Academic editors:

The fund related information has been deleted from the manuscript, the ethics statement has been added to the material and methods, the tables has been added to the corresponding position of the manuscript as required, the figures have been uploaded in TIF format as required, and the format of the reference literature has been modified as required.

Recommendations of Reviewer 1:

The study and manuscript by Peng et al. are straight-forward, clear and interesting.Since HAP1 and Hap2 are closely related to each other and the authors suspect that the genetic diversity of linage A may be due to sexual reproduction between linages A and B I think that the study would benefit from further analysis of L. invasa males.A representative number (N>20) of male samples from each linage should be added to the basin analysis in order to supply a better understanding on the genetic drift of L. invasa.

Author's response to Reviewer 1:

Adding male samples to each population is indeed of great significance to explain the genetic drift of L. invasa. Especially in populations with introgressive hybridization, the male genotype will be strong evidence to verify the introgressive hybridization between lineages. Unfortunately, parthenogenesis is still the main reproductive mode of L. invasa, and it is difficult for us to collect samples of male adults in the field. For example, in the nearly 300 L. invasa samples collected from the GXFCG1 population, only 2 were males, while in the nearly 200 L. invasa samples collected from the GXFCG2 population, only 4 were males. Moreover, as we did not collect males from most geographical populations, we had too few male samples for a population genetic analysis. At present, we may not be able to supplement the male samples of each population (> 20), but we are also trying to collect a large number of male samples to supplement our experiments in the future. We will further monitor the introgressive hybridization of L. invasa to provide a reference for preventing the spread of invasive pests worldwide.

Recommendations of Reviewer 2:

paper analyzed the genetic diversity of Leptocybe invasa from china. I believe the data of is especially valuable and helpful for research community. However, there are significant corrections which need to be made with regards to the write up, grammar and syntax need to be corrected for readability as the manuscript results are valuable to a diverse range of readers. Furthermore, the figures and tables need to be self-explanatory and thus the description of the figures and tables in the captions need to be revised. Kindly find my revisions to the grammar within the attached document.

Author's response to Reviewer 2:

The table has been inserted after the first quoted paragraph, and the title of the figure has been inserted after the first quoted paragraph, according to the formatting requirements of journal. The notes for the tables and figures have been supplemented. Additionally, the full text of the manuscript was polished to ensure its English readability.

Amend the notes in the attached document to read as follows

Note 1: how many samples were obtained at each location. This should be stated here or in the table.

Answer: The number of samples collected by each geographical population has been supplemented in the sample size column in Table 1.

Note 2: you wrote it for the audience. Some people may not know what nanodrop is.

Answer: The mention of a nanodrop in this article has been changed to a Nanodrop 2000 spectrophotometer.

Note 3: This statement needs to be revised

Answer: The language expression has been modified, see lines 158-159 for details.

Note 4: This statement is confusing please re-write

Answer: The language expression has been modified, see lines 166-167 for details.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor

Genetic diversity analysis of the invasive gall pest Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Apodemidae) from China

PONE-D-21-20406R1

Dear Dr. Yang,

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,

Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor

PONE-D-21-20406R1

Genetic diversity analysis of the invasive gall pest Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Apodemidae) from China

Dear Dr. Yang:

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. Bi-Song Yue

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .