Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 17, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-24-57514Insights from the transcriptome and metabolome into the molecular basis of diapause in Leguminivora glycinivorella (Lepidoptera, Olethreutidae)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. XUE, 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. Regarding the reviewers comments, some sections need critical check especially discussion of the results, systematic introduction of the background and relevancy to the study, methodology consistency and improvement of the abstract. Please improve it point-wise based on reviewers comments, suggestions etc. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 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:
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, Munir Ahmad, 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 2. 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. 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. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 5. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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 presented a study aimed at identifying the key substances of diapause regulation by differential expression genes and differential metabolites, using transcriptome and metabolomics in the diapause and pre-diapause stages in L. glycinivorella. They found that metabolic regulation involving TCA cycle, glycolysis, insulin signaling pathway, and glycerophospholipid metabolic pathway, which suggesting that they may be closely related to energy reserve, immune regulation and hormone regulation during diapause. I have a hard time finding key results related to the described discussion… Therefore, I recommend that some revisions be made and specific questions be addressed before the paper is published. [Abstract] - In the abstract, insulin signaling is presented as a major pathway; however, there is a lack of related discussion in the results and discussion sections. [Introduction] - It is necessary to present a concise and clear explanation of diapause in the introduction, focusing on its relevance to the study. - It would be beneficial to present the advantages and necessity of integrating transcriptomics and metabolomics in molecular mechanism studies. [Method] - It is necessary to specify the number of samples used in the transcriptomics and metabolomics analyses. - I can’t determine the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously. It is necessary to specify the data analysis methods, statistical method, and the statistical software used in the transcriptome and metabolome analysis. - The sample preparation method for metabolomics, as well as the LC-MS analysis procedure, should be described. - It is necessary to present information on the identified metabolites in a supplementary table with retention time, m/z, ppm error, CV%, intensity or fold change between diapause and pre-diapause stages, p-value. [Results] - 9(S)-HODE and PA(8:0/a-15:0) are not commonly observed under metabolite and lipid profiling conditions. Have their peaks been confirmed, and have they been validated using standard compounds? - In Figure S4, the colors and shapes of PCR and RNA-seq data are too similar, making them difficult to distinguish. It is necessary to represent them differently. - The content of the following sentence does not match the figure legend, and the labels "A" and "B" are missing from Figure 3. Revisions are needed. “50 of 107 were higher in PD (Figure 3B), and the top 5 up-regulated metabolites were Adenylosuccinate, 9(S)-HODE, PA(8:0/a15:0), N6-(1,2-Dicarboxyethyl)-AMP, and N-acetylaspartate. 57 of 107 were higher in D, and the top 5 down-regulated metabolites were 5-Hydroxy-L-tryptophan, PE (15:0/22:4(7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)), Sphingosine, Pantothenic Acid, and Glycerophosphocholine.” - It is difficult to find the level changes of DEGs in the paper through figures or tables. It is necessary to present the data more clearly for easier reference. “These results showed that, in the developmental process from PD to D, most DEGs were related to the immune defense, energy metabolism and hormone synthesis. There were three down-regulated DEGs related to insect immunity and defense (heat shock protein genes (HSP), Superoxide Dismutase (SOD), and catalase(CAT)), six down regulated DEGs related to energy metabolism (hexokinase (HK), pyruvate kinase (PK), ATP-dependent 6-phosphofructokinase (PFK), citrate synthase (CS), isocitrate dehydrogenase [NADP] cytoplasmic (IDH), α,α-trehalose-phosphate synthase [UDP forming] (TPS)), and two down-regulated DEGs related to hormone synthesis (juvenile hormone epoxide hydrolase (JHEH) and 20-hydroxyecdysone (20E)).” “In this study, it was found that JHEH was down-regulated during diapause, thereby inhibiting the breakdown of juvenile hormones and keeping the larvae in the larval state for a long time, which may be the reason why SPB maintains diapause with mature larvae.” [Discussion] - Please provide the evidence based on the results to support the conclusion stated in the sentence on page 17, line 253 of the Discussion section. “it is of great significance to study the transcriptome and metabolome of soybean insect at different diapause stages.” - If there are existing studies related to the following sentence, relevant references should be added. “Certain metabolites, such as Phosphatidyl choline (PC) and proline, can act as cryoprotectants to improve cold tolerance in diapausing insects.” - Figure 4 appears to represent the key metabolic pathways identified in this study. Therefore, it is necessary to provide an interpretation and discussion of the key metabolites and transcriptomic changes observed in the study based on the measured results. Including unverified metabolites and transcripts in the interpretation may lead to overstatements. For example, regarding glycerol aldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P), the discussion includes changes in glycerol kinase (GK), glucose, glycogen, and glycerol. It is important to specify whether changes in glycerol kinase (GK), glucose, glycogen, and glycerol were actually observed. - The title "4.2 Immune Response in the Diapause" primarily refers to immune response; however, the content mainly discusses ROS and antioxidants. A more appropriate revision of the title is needed to accurately reflect the content. [Minor] - Spelling corrections are needed throughout various sections of the paper. Reviewer #2: General comments: This study investigates the molecular basis of diapause in Leguminivora glycinivorella, a major soybean pest responsible for significant economic losses. By integrating transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses, the authors compared gene expression and metabolite profiles between pre-diapause and diapause stages, identifying differentially expressed genes and significantly altered metabolites. The findings highlight three critical molecular events during diapause—energy reserve accumulation, immune enhancement, and hormonal regulation—which collectively serve as adaptive mechanisms for survival under stress conditions. These findings advance understanding of diapause regulation in L. glycinivorella. Major comments: 1. All figures in the manuscript are of insufficient resolution, making it difficult to discern the details and interpret the data accurately. 2. The qPCR results are not adequately described in the main text, and their significance is unclear. Additionally, the genes IMP3, RIOK2, and RPP25L mentioned in Figure S4 and Table S1 are not introduced or discussed. Furthermore, there is a repetition in the listing of the RPP25L-F primer sequences, which needs to be corrected. 3. While KEGG pathway enrichment analysis identifies key pathways such as the TCA cycle and glycolysis, the study fails to explain how these pathways interact to regulate diapause. For instance, it remains unclear whether energy conservation during diapause is achieved through suppressed glycolysis or enhanced lipid metabolism. 4. Some of the bioinformatic tools, such as HISAT, StringTie, and DESeq2, lack reference citations. ********** 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Insights from the transcriptome and metabolome into the molecular basis of diapause in Leguminivora glycinivorella (Lepidoptera, Olethreutidae) PONE-D-24-57514R1 Dear Dr. XUE, 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, Munir Ahmad, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-57514R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. XUE, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Munir Ahmad 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 .