Metarhizium spp. isolates effective against Queensland fruit fly juvenile life stages in soil

Madita Prince; Aimee C. McKinnon; Diana Leemon; Tim Sawbridge; John Paul Cunningham

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297341

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 12, 2023
8 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar, Editor PONE-D-23-37553Metarhizium spp. isolates effective against Queensland fruit fly juvenile life stages in soil.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prince, 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 Jan 22 2024 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, Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar, 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "MP: This research was conducted as part of a PhD fellowship with financial support from Agriculture Victoria (https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/) and La Trobe University (https://www.latrobe.edu.au). Work was carried out under the project: A national biocontrol program to manage pest fruit flies in Australia (Project ID: 4-EKSH327)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. [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: Yes 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: 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 authors in the manuscript entitled “Metarhizium spp. isolates effective against Queensland fruit fly juvenile life stages in soil” investigate how different fungal isolates effect against the Queensland fruit fly. This study, which aims to combat an extremely harmful species, will shed light on future studies with other species. The aim of the article is appropriate to the scope of the journal and up-to-date. The purpose and content of the text are well-designed. Besides the corrections in PDF, the suggestions are reported below. • The language of the article is inadequate. The article should definitely be read by a native speaker. • In References section, there are some mistakes. All references must be corrected according to the rules established by the journal. Species names must be written in italic. Besides, journal names should be abbreviated. Reviewer #2: The findings of the paper definitely contribute towards control of fruit fly. However, since these are laboratory studies done in controlled environments it will be highly valuable if studies done for actual field conditions (references or work done by other researchers for similar pests) can be supplemented. In IPM approach the actual contribution of the fungi for fruit fly control cannot be augmented. ****** 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: Yes: K. Yashkamal ******** [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: PONE-D-23-37553.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Evaluation report.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-37553.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297341.r001
Revision 1
25 Dec 2023 Author Response Response to reviewer 1: Edits have been made to address any grammatical errors where we agreed it was necessary; these changes are detailed below. Four authors are native English speakers, and we do not feel that the definite article “the” is necessary before a common name (in this case, Queensland fruit fly). We do, however, very much appreciate the thoroughness of the review provided and hope that the revised version of the manuscript is considered more than adequate with respect to the grammar and readability. The reference section was also corrected as per the requirements of the journal. The following comments were addressed, and changes made if necessary: 1. Removing of the space before percentage (Lines: 38, 39, 43, 44, 109,114, 115, 126, 130, 131, 132, 138, 139, 161, 170, 179, 181, 185, 186, 188, 205, 218, 219, 239, 265, 267, 268, 346, 354, 355, 356, 358, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 373, 382, 383, 395, 397, 399, 400, 419, 421, 422, 462, 463, 490, 515, 517, 519, and 523). 2. We have not added an article before Queensland fruit fly. Queensland fruit fly is a common name of a species and therefore does not need an article. Comments were made by the reviewer in this regard in lines’ 29, 35, 48, 54, 58, 67, 90, 93, 101, 108, 149, 168, 222, 371, 403, 411, 414, 430, 434, 465, 470, 499, 517, 531, and 533. To keep it more consistent, articles where additionally removed before common names of other fruit fly species in line 52, 84, 418, 420, 429, 445, 453, 476, 477, and 520. 3. We made the suggested minor grammatical changes by the reviewer in the following lines: 34, 51, 60, 78, 79, 84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96, 101, 109, 113, 114, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 138, 139, 151, 155, 156, 161, 184, 185, 205, 209, 210, 215, 232, 233, 236, 240, 244, 245, 269, 289, 304, 309, 348, 353, 355, 360, 381, 390, 391, 393, 397, 430, 431, 437, 446, 456, 458, 459, 464, 465, 478, 481, 482, 488, 491, 493, 494, 497, 502, 510, 513, 516, 518, 520, 521, 524, and 526. 4. We paraphrased the sentence in line 354, as advised. 5. We don’t think an article in front of third-instar larvae is necessary. Comments were made by the reviewer in this regard in lines’ 36, 41, 103, 166, 167, 221, 257, 296, 297, 347, 360, 361, 363, 371, 402, 419, 435, 499, 501, and 515. 6. We have not changed the spelling of litre (Australian/ British English) to liter (American English) in line 115, because we have used Australian/Bristish English throughout. Same goes for the suggested change from centre to ‘center’ (the latter being American English) in line 198. 7. We have not hyphenated colony forming units as suggested in line 174, because it is typically written without a hyphen and uses the acronym ‘CFUs’ and not ‘C-FUs’, in much of the scientific literature. 8. Line 178. The authors felt the suggested change was unnecessary and doesn’t improve or alter the readability of the MS. 9. We decided not to hyphenate surface sterilised pupae as suggested in line 186, as it is not conventional to do this. 10. We have added the species name before isolate names for clarification (Line 299, 302, 348, 349, 360, 378, 481, 500, 501, and 513). 11. We did not make the suggested change in line 470 “Ranging from 5 to 31 days”, as this is implied by the written format and seems redundant to state. Response to reviewer 2: On behalf of the authors, we went through the comments and made changes to clarify content when suggested. The following comments were addressed, and changes made: 1. We specified the larval stage tested as suggested in line 96. 2. The treatment was specified as suggested in line 129 and 135. 3. To clarify the isolates details, the caption of table 2 was edited (line 345). 4. Isolate details were clarified in line 191, 192 as well as in lines’ 348, 349, as advised. 5. We added information about two field studies. The first study was using M. anisopliae alone and in combination with a spinosad based bait spray against Oriental fruit fly (B. dorsalis) in Kenya, whereas the second study was using a combination of fungal entomopathogens (M. anisopliae or B. bassiana) and entomopathogenic nematodes (S. carpocapsae or H. bacteriophora) against peach fruit fly (B. zonata) and Oriental fruit fly (B. dorsalis) (line 529 and following). These studies suggesting that fungal isolates can be part of an effective IPM approach for field suppression of pestiferous fruit flies. Field efficacy studies of the fungal isolates have been suggested for future studies, however, the manuscript presents a complete body of work, is novel and will add value to field of research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297341.r002
4 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar, Editor Metarhizium spp. isolates effective against Queensland fruit fly juvenile life stages in soil. PONE-D-23-37553R1 Dear Dr. Prince, 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, Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): the manuscript can be accepted 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 #1: 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 #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: When I reviewed the PDF, I noticed that the authors had made all the necessary corrections. The article can be printed with this version. My decision is: Accept ****** 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 #1: No ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Evaluation report-2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297341.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar, Editor PONE-D-23-37553R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prince, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Muthugounder Subramanian Shivakumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297341.r004

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 .