Dear Dr. Akmali,

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 Apr 06 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.

• 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,

António Raposo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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. 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 your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.-->--> -->-->Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).-->--> -->-->For example, authors should submit the following data:-->--> -->-->- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;-->-->- The values used to build graphs;-->-->- The points extracted from images for analysis.-->--> -->-->Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.-->--> -->-->If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.-->--> -->-->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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.-->--> -->-->4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.-->?>

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  Respectfully

The study was statistically and content-wise reviewed.

Please make the following corrections:

It is unclear how many mealworms were used per treatment and whether replicates were biological or technical.

The manuscript states that three replicates per diet were used, but this may not be sufficient for robust statistical comparisons.

The study does not report mycotoxin screening or contamination control in dietary ingredients.

Given that bran-based diets can be prone to fungal or bacterial contamination, this omission is a potential flaw affecting validity.

While protein content is analyzed, no detailed amino acid profile is provided, which is crucial for evaluating the nutritional quality of mealworms.

The manuscript states that the study was approved by the Razi University Ethics Committee, but the specific ethical considerations for insect research are not discussed.

More details on ethical handling and humane euthanasia methods for mealworms should be included.

The conclusion claims broad applicability of the findings to mealworm farming, but these claims lack sufficient evidence from large-scale trials.

More discussion on real-world feasibility and potential economic implications of using chickpea bran in commercial mealworm farming is needed.

The discussion cites relevant literature, but comparisons with previous studies are weak.

It is unclear how the results align or contradict existing research on insect nutrition.

A more systematic comparison with past studies is needed to establish the novelty of the work.

The study evaluates mineral content, but it does not consider possible heavy metal accumulation in larvae, which is a critical concern for human and animal consumption.

A brief discussion of food safety risks would improve the manuscript.

The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that reduce readability.

Example:

"The results showed that diets with 50% chickpea bran and 50% barley bran had the highest and lowest protein content in larvae."

Revision: "Diets containing 50% chickpea bran produced larvae with the highest protein content, while those with 50% barley bran yielded the lowest."

Some figures (e.g., Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) lack clear labeling and legends.

Tables do not adequately summarize key statistical findings (e.g., missing p-values).

5. Recommendations for Improvement

1. Clarify the research question and hypothesis to provide a stronger framework for the study.

2. Improve statistical analyses, including effect size reporting, confidence intervals, and power analysis.

3. Justify diet selection based on scientific rationale rather than arbitrary choices.

4. Ensure that all feed conversion calculations account for moisture content to prevent misinterpretation of FCE results.

5. Provide amino acid profiling to enhance the discussion on nutritional quality.

6. Discuss potential biases and limitations more explicitly.

7. Improve clarity and organization of tables and figures for better readability.

8. Refine the discussion section to integrate findings with prior research more effectively.

9. Check for potential contamination in dietary substrates and discuss implications.

10. Address ethical considerations in insect research, including humane handling and euthanasia.

Use and cite the following studies to improve the structure and content of your study:

-A review of cultural aspects and barriers to the consumption of edible insects

-First Report of Hermetia Illucens (Linnaeus, 1758), Black Soldier Fly (Diptera, Stratiomyidae) from Iran

-The Effects of Curcumin Supplementation on Body Weight, Body Mass Index, and Waist Circumference in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

-Halal Certification for edible insects

The study needs a complete revision in terms of language and grammar.

Good luck.

Reviewer #2:  I have found the manuscript important and worthy of consideration. This study provides valuable insights on “Influence of dietary composition on the nutritional profile and feed conversion efficiency of Tenebrio molitor”. However, it requires minor revisions before the editor makes a final decision.

1. The abstract is quite long. You can consider making it more concise. Please clarify the practical applications of the findings, like implications for large-scale production.

2. Could you discuss in the introduction why this study is necessary compared to existing research?

3. In the method section, could you briefly explain why ANOVA and Tukey’s test were chosen?

One suggestion for language and formatting. While reading, I have found some sentences are overly complex, simplify those for readability.

Thank you.

Reviewer #3:  Introduction

• The research gap is not strongly justified. The introduction should explicitly state what is missing in current knowledge and why this study is needed.

• The introduction should mention any previous studies that have examined similar dietary influences on mealworms and explain how this study builds upon or differs from them.

• It lacks a theoretical framework for insect nutrition—key biological principles governing mealworm growth (e.g., metabolic efficiency, nutrient assimilation) could strengthen the justification.

• The hypothesis or specific research questions are not explicitly stated. A clear hypothesis would improve focus.

Methodology

• The study lacks a clear justification for the sample size. How was the number of mealworms per treatment determined? Was there a power analysis?

• The experiment lasted 12 weeks, but there is no discussion on whether this timeframe is sufficient to assess long-term dietary effects.

• Potential biases: Since mealworm growth can be influenced by factors such as rearing density, genetic variability, and microclimate conditions, were these controlled?

• The moisture addition (carrots) could introduce variation. Was this accounted for in data interpretation?

Results

• Some results lack clear interpretation—for example, what biological mechanisms might explain why diet C had the highest conversion efficiency?

• The statistical significance of certain comparisons is not always explained in a biologically meaningful way.

• Figures lack sufficient labeling—ensure all legends and axis labels are self-explanatory.

Discussion

• The discussion sometimes repeats results rather than interpreting them in-depth.

• The implications for real-world applications (e.g., poultry feed formulation, industrial insect farming) could be expanded.

• It lacks a "Limitations and Future Research" section, which is important for acknowledging study constraints.

Reviewer #4:  Dear Authors,

After reviewing your ms, I conclude that it is not ready to publish. I have three important parts, either are missing and must add, either must be revised.

1) The statistics are missing. You must add a statistic model to your results.

2) The results must be separated from the discussion because it is better to read you text.

3) The figures must be more readable.

4) You don’t answer at the discussion why this research is important

Reviewer #5:  The article "Influence of dietary composition on the nutritional profile and feed conversion efficiency of Tenebrio molitor" is an original work that brings relevant and detailed aspects about the diet of a species of larvae used in poultry and other animal farming. The methodology of the work is clear and well-conducted. Additionally, the presentation, writing, and discussion of the data are good. I have a few considerations for the authors that could enhance the quality of the work:

In some sections of the Results and Discussion, the authors mention data that are simultaneously shown in figures and tables, such as Figure 1 and Table 1. I believe this redundancy of information is unnecessary. I think Figure 1 could be moved to supplementary material. I suggest revising the tables and figures and keeping only one method of presenting results in the main text.

I suggest the authors use only the designations for the diets: A, B, C, etc. At several points, the authors return to mention the composition of the diets already described in the Methods.

The authors also cite details contained in the tables, such as averages and percentages, within the text, which makes it tiring to read. I suggest avoiding such repetitions.

There are inconsistencies related to the percentages of the diet, for example, between lines 300-301. I suggest reviewing the entire section.

**********

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: Yes:  EBRAHIM ABBASI

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

Influence of dietary composition on the nutritional profile and feed conversion efficiency of Tenebrio molitor

PONE-D-25-04529R1

Dear Dr. Akmali,

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,

António Raposo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: Dear Author, your ms it is not at the level of the magazine, I have objections on a scientific level, n=3 is not a number of insects that corresponds to research at this level. I apologize, unfortunately I will have to reject the your ms.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********