PONE-D-25-02354Antagonistic control of intracellular signals by EpOMEs in hemocytes induced by PGE2 and their chemical modification for a potent insecticidePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

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 Mar 26 2025 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,

Youming Hou

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.  Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by a grant (No. 2022R1A2B5B03001792) from the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Republic of Korea. This study was also funded by a research grant from Andong National University. “

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.

5. Please expand the acronym “NRF (KR)” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by a grant (No. 2022R1A2B5B03001792) from the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Republic of Korea. This study was also funded by a research grant from Andong National University.”

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:

“This work was supported by a grant (No. 2022R1A2B5B03001792) from the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Republic of Korea. This study was also funded by a research grant from Andong National University.”

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

7. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Yonggyun Kim.”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Author should pay attentions to revisefd manuscript, correct the flow of paper, remove all errors and specailly take services of professional to make all corrections

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 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 abstract provides a concise summary of the study, highlighting the key findings regarding the roles of PGE2 and EpOMEs in immune regulation in Maruca vitrata. However, there are a few areas that could be improved:

The abstract is somewhat dense and could benefit from clearer language to make it more accessible to a broader audience.

The abstract mentions low nanogram levels and < 50 ppm but does not provide context for these values. It would be helpful to clarify what these concentrations mean in practical terms.

There are minor grammatical errors, such as bsract instead of abstract and findings indicate that EpOMEs are conserved which seems to be an incomplete sentence.

The introduction is well-written and provides a thorough background on insect immunity and the roles of oxylipins. However, there are a few issues:

Some information is repeated, such as the roles of PGE2 and EpOMEs, which could be streamlined for brevity.

- Incomplete Sentences: For example, These EpOMEs are findings indicate that EpOMEs are conserved is incomplete and confusing.

Some references are not properly integrated into the text, making it difficult to follow which statements are supported by which studies.

This section is detailed and generally well-organized, but there are some areas that need attention:

The description of the chemical synthesis is somewhat convoluted and could be simplified for clarity. Additionally, the reference to Fig 1 and S1 Fig is unclear without the actual figures.

The methods for quantifying cAMP and calcium ion levels are described, but the section could benefit from more detail on the statistical analysis used.

The description of the TUNEL assay is clear, but the results of this assay are not fully integrated into the results section, making it difficult to assess their significance.

The results section is comprehensive but has some issues:

Some data are presented without sufficient context or explanation. For example, the significance of the dose-dependent inhibition by EpOMEs could be more clearly explained.

The text refers to figures (e.g., Fig 10, S1-S3 Table) that are not provided, making it difficult to evaluate the results.

The statistical methods used are not clearly described, and it is unclear whether the results are statistically significant.

The discussion is thoughtful and well-reasoned, but there are a few areas for improvement:

Some conclusions seem to go beyond the data presented. For example, the potential of EpOMEs as lead compounds for novel insecticides is discussed, but the study does not provide sufficient evidence to fully support this claim.

While future research directions are suggested, they are somewhat vague. More specific recommendations would be helpful.

The discussion could better integrate the results of the TUNEL assay and other experiments to provide a more cohesive narrative.

The conclusion is generally well-written but could be improved:

The conclusion could more clearly summarize the key findings and their implications.

The suggestions for future research are somewhat generic and could be more specific.

The manuscript would benefit from clearer language and better organization, particularly in the materials and methods and results sections. The presentation of data could be improved, with more context and explanation provided for key findings. The manuscript should be revised for clarity, with particular attention to the abstract, introduction, and materials and methods sections. Author strongly recommended to take professional services of acadmicengine.com for bettler flow, grammer corrections

Reviewer #2: The manuscript contains several grammatical mistakes and awkward sentence structures. For instance, "Intracellular signaling pathway to suppress the immune responses by these oxylipins were previously unclear" should be rewritten for clarity, such as "The intracellular signaling pathway by which these oxylipins suppress immune responses was previously unclear."Ensure subject-verb agreement throughout the text (e.g., "pathway... were" should be "pathway... was").

The phrasing in several places is overly complex. Simplifying the language while maintaining scientific accuracy will improve readability.

The introduction should provide a clearer link between prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), EpOMEs, and their immunosuppressive function. Some statements feel abrupt and could benefit from smoother transitions.

The methodology regarding immune response measurements should be explained in a more structured way to ensure logical flow.

The transition from immune suppression findings to insecticidal potential should be more explicit. Currently, it feels abrupt and needs better integration into the discussion.

The manuscript does not clearly describe the figures and tables, making it difficult for readers to interpret the data. Each figure and table should be introduced with a clear rationale and explained adequately in the results section.

Statistical results should be clearly indicated in tables and figures with proper legends. Ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., p-values, standard errors, and confidence intervals should be presented uniformly).

Some details in the text about figures (e.g., hemocyte apoptosis visualization) could be better aligned with figure descriptions.

The statement that "EpOMEs suppressed the up-regulation of total hemocyte count induced by PGE2" should include statistical support and more precise wording. Does it completely suppress or partially reduce?

The claim about EpOMEs' potential as insecticidal agents requires a stronger discussion on stability, delivery methods, and environmental impact. More supporting references would enhance credibility.

The difference in immunosuppressive effects between 12,13-EpOME and 9,10-EpOME should be explained with possible mechanistic insights.

The conclusion should explicitly summarize the main findings and their significance rather than introducing new information.

Consider adding a statement on the broader implications of EpOMEs as potential biopesticides, including limitations and future research directions.

Overall, the manuscript presents interesting findings, but significant revisions are needed to improve clarity, grammar, and scientific rigor, its better to takes services of professional

**********

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.

<p>Antagonistic control of intracellular signals by EpOMEs in hemocytes induced by PGE2 and their chemical modification for a potent insecticide

PONE-D-25-02354R1

Dear Dr. Kim,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Youming Hou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am satisfied with quality of paper

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

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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 #1: manuscript issues are resolved point by point, therefore i reccmended to accpet the paper in its current form

Reviewer #2: author adress all issue which was highlighted, therfore, i reccmeded to Accept in its current form

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********