Artificial diet alters activity and rest patterns in the olive fruit fly

Anastasia M. Terzidou; Dimitrios S. Koveos; Nikos T. Papadopoulos; James R. Carey; Nikos A. Kouloussis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274586

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 29, 2022
17 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, Editor PONE-D-22-24097Laboratory rearing alters activity and sleep patterns in the olive fruit flyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kouloussis, 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. First, apologies for the long delay to send the reviews due to reviewer prior time commitments. The manuscript is of considerable interest. However the two reviewers have raised some important issues that need to be addressed. Especially reviewer 1 raises significant methodological issues that need to be thoroughly addressed as they will contribute significantly to clarity and ease of interpretation. All other comments and suggestions should also be heeded. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2022 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, Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, PhD 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.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.01271/full https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11854509/ https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1096/fj.202001107R 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [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: No 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: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 manuscript contains two major problems. First the inactivity is not clearly defined as sleep or what kind of sleep. Fatigue, lethargus, or true sleep? Is this inactivity accompanied with circadain timing, fixed sleep site, fixed sleep posture, rebound from the deprivation of spleep or fixed encephalographic patterns? Second, the change is associated with any circadian parameters like phase, amplitude, period, synchrony etc. Is the change associated with any circadian gene expression dynamics? We cannot make further scientifia analysis from this point. Current condition remains incomplete condition. Reviewer #2: The manuscript refers to the results of an original research that explores behavioral traits of adults of the olive pest Bactrocera oleae using an automatic system developed for Drosophila. In comparison with similar behavioral studies carried out in the past, the automatic device allows to collect much data, working also in the darkness. The manuscript shows very interesting findings obtained comparing also wild adults to artificially reared ones. These outcomes will improve basic knowledge on insect and animal behavior providing also important insights that should be taken into account for practical applications (to produce high quality mass reared insects for SIT purposes). Overall, the manuscript is well written, hypotheses and objectives of the research are clearly defined, the methodology is also precisely described. Results are supported by enough data, correctly analyzed (although I think the automatic device might have allowed to perform more replications). The Result chapter should be amended for a recurrent misprint. In the discussion chapter findings are compared with and supported by outcomes from most relevant literature, although some citations were missing. My main comments and suggestions on the manuscript are reported in the point-to-point attached file. ****** 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: PlosOne D-22-24097_Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.r001
Revision 1
1 Dec 2022 Author Response Response to the Editor comments: 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 Response 1. We updated the revised MS according to the style requirements. Figure titles that were not included previously are added. The references style was also adjusted. 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: • https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.01271/full [48] Response 2. The phrase has been re-written with an additional reference to support it (lines 355-356 of unmarked MS): In drosophila flies, the loss of sleep can have a negative impact in their brain function [19], although the sleep deprivation effects in adults can be reversed through recovery sleep [46, 47]. • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11854509/ [50] Response 2. The text and reference have been removed, after we re-wrote the discussion section accordingly to reviewers’ suggestions. • https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1096/fj.202001107R [44] Response 2. The text and reference have been removed, after we re-wrote the discussion section accordingly to reviewers’ suggestions. 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. Response 3. No field access permit was needed, as infested olive fruits were not collected from a commercial grove, but from abandoned or ornamental trees (line number 85-87 of the unmarked MS) 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response 4. We added the scholarship details received by AMT from the State Scholarship Foundation in the Funding Information section. The correct Financial disclosure is also given in the latest cover letter. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Response 5. We have uploaded the dataset at zenodo repository. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7221901 Response to Reviewer’s #1 comments: Reviewer #1: The manuscript contains two major problems. First the inactivity is not clearly defined as sleep or what kind of sleep. Fatigue, lethargus, or true sleep? Is this inactivity accompanied with circadian timing, fixed sleep site, fixed sleep posture, rebound from the deprivation of sleep or fixed encephalographic patterns? Second, the change is associated with any circadian parameters like phase, amplitude, period, synchrony etc. Is the change associated with any circadian gene expression dynamics? We cannot make further scientific analysis from this point. Current condition remains incomplete condition. Response: We agree that the term sleep has to be defined by the parameters that the reviewer has listed. We have conducted an additional bioassay with wild olive fruit flies to observe the preferred body posture and position in the tubes were the flies are maintained. Photos and videos are provided as supporting information. Encephalographic patterns and gene expression research cannot to be conducted in our laboratory. Further bioassays with laboratory reared flies were not possible, as we no longer maintain the specific colony in our laboratory. Since we cannot define the episodes of inactivity as sleep episodes, we used the term “rest” throughout the text. The discussion was re-written to support more strongly the importance of quality laboratory reared flies for the SIT, as suggested by the other reviewer. The parts of the discussion referring to the sleep state of flies were removed. Reviewer #2: The manuscript refers to the results of an original research that explores behavioral traits of adults of the olive pest Bactrocera oleae using an automatic system developed for Drosophila. In comparison with similar behavioral studies carried out in the past, the automatic device allows to collect much data, working also in the darkness. The manuscript shows very interesting findings obtained comparing also wild adults to artificially reared ones. These outcomes will improve basic knowledge on insect and animal behavior providing also important insights that should be taken into account for practical applications (to produce high quality mass reared insects for SIT purposes). Overall, the manuscript is well written, hypotheses and objectives of the research are clearly defined, the methodology is also precisely described. Results are supported by enough data, correctly analyzed (although I think the automatic device might have allowed to perform more replications). The Result chapter should be amended for a recurrent misprint. In the discussion chapter findings are compared with and supported by outcomes from most relevant literature, although some citations were missing. My main comments and suggestions on the manuscript are reported in the point-to-point attached file. Response to reviewer #2 The Result chapter has been amended for a recurrent mistake, as suggested. The discussion section has been re-written, with more comments of the importance of the quality of laboratory reared flies used for SIT, supporting references and also mentioning the previous relevant work of researchers like Economopoulos et al. Point-to-point suggestions were addressed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.r002
19 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, Editor PONE-D-22-24097R1Artificial diet alters activity and rest patterns in the olive fruit flyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kouloussis, 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. ============================== though the manuscript was improved additional changes as suggested by the reviewer are necessary. Please address all requested changes and suggestions. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 2023 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, Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 #2: Yes ****** 5. 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 #2: Yes ****** 6. 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 #2: The revised manuscript was notably changed and improved, mainly thanks to criticism raised by the reviewer 1. All the issues have been addressed. Moreover, I found the additional experiment useful and new observations and comments explain the results more clearly. According to the new accounts, it seems that flies are not perfectly still during rest episodes since they move their proboscis both in light and dark periods. I understand this is beyond the manuscript’s purpose, however I wonder whether this behavior might be an “involuntary” movement or what else. Was it observed in both sexes? Might it be possibly related to their physiological state? I am listing some very minor revisions, although I recommend to check the revised manuscript for English language since some sentences do not sound correct. Line 130: edit “Glycine” instead of “Glysine” Lines 168-174: specify that wild olive fruit flies have been used. Line 354: delete “of” Line 422: I think you intended writing “from” instead of “for” Line 439: Figure S1: Can you specify in the figure caption if the flies are a male and a female? That cannot be clearly evaluated for the fly on the left. Line 441: Please, specify in the figure caption “Resting olive fruit fly female during” Lines 442: Please, specify in the figure caption if the fly is a male or a female Lines 444: Please, specify in the figure caption if the fly is a male or a female ****** 7. 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.r003
Revision 2
30 Jan 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer’s #2 comments: Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript was notably changed and improved, mainly thanks to criticism raised by the reviewer 1. All the issues have been addressed. Moreover, I found the additional experiment useful and new observations and comments explain the results more clearly. According to the new accounts, it seems that flies are not perfectly still during rest episodes since they move their proboscis both in light and dark periods. I understand this is beyond the manuscript’s purpose, however I wonder whether this behavior might be an “involuntary” movement or what else. Was it observed in both sexes? Might it be possibly related to their physiological state? Response: (Line 244 of the Revised Manuscript with track changes) “Protrusion and retraction of the proboscis were observed in both sexes, in otherwise immobile flies.” We noted that this behavior was observed in both sexes. It could be an involuntary movement of the fly, but as we lack any more data to support this hypothesis, we did not elaborate any further on this topic in the manuscript. I am listing some very minor revisions, although I recommend to check the revised manuscript for English language since some sentences do not sound correct. The manuscript was checked by a proficient colleague, mentioned in the Acknowledgment section. Responses to point to point comments of the reviewer are listed in the uploaded file "Response to Reviewers.docx" Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.r004
5 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, Editor Artificial diet alters activity and rest patterns in the olive fruit fly PONE-D-22-24097R2 Dear Dr. Kouloussis, 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, Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 #2: Yes ****** 5. 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 #2: Yes ****** 6. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.r005
Formally Accepted
10 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, Editor PONE-D-22-24097R2 Artificial diet alters activity and rest patterns in the olive fruit fly Dear Dr. Kouloussis: 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. Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274586.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 .