Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 3, 2020
Decision Letter - Dmitri Boudko, Editor

PONE-D-20-16879

A comparison of aquaporin expression in mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti) that develop in hypo-osmotic freshwater and iso-osmotic brackish water.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Donini,

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 Aug 08 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dmitri Boudko

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: This study examined expression of aquaporins in Aedes larvae reared under brackish and fresh water conditions. The general conclusion is that there is little change in the AQP levels, which suggests that there is little role in AQPs in relation to adapting to brackish waters.

My only major concern is without functional studies, such as RNAi, that that role of AQPs shoudl not be discounted. It might be worth mentioning there could be a role post-translational. The AQPs could have a role and expressional changes in other tissues.

Also, prolonged rearing of the larvae udner the conditions might have missed the changes that occurred earlier in larval development (worth mentioning, but not a major issue).

Otherwise, I have few other comments.

Specific points:

1. Check references

2. Double check figure references in text.

3. I would suggest combining Figure 2-4 into a single figure (since most show no significance).

4. Arrow labeling isn't consistent on Figure 5.

5. qPCR: Please provide evidence that 18s RNA (control).

6. Provide df and F values for stats.

**********

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

[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

Reviewer #1: This study examined expression of aquaporins in Aedes larvae reared under brackish and fresh water conditions. The general conclusion is that there is little change in the AQP levels, which suggests that there is little role in AQPs in relation to adapting to brackish waters.

My only major concern is without functional studies, such as RNAi, that that role of AQPs shoudl not be discounted. It might be worth mentioning there could be a role post-translational. The AQPs could have a role and expressional changes in other tissues.

Also, prolonged rearing of the larvae udner the conditions might have missed the changes that occurred earlier in larval development (worth mentioning, but not a major issue).

Author Response: These are good points. We have already seen drastic changes in anal papillae in our previous studies. Other areas of the GI tract could also play a role (e.g. midgut) as well as the fatbody which requires further investigation. We have modified the conclusion section at the end of the Discussion to address these points.

Otherwise, I have few other comments.

Specific points:

1. Check references

Author Response: Thank you. We have examined the reference section and did spot several errors which have now been corrected.

2. Double check figure references in text.

Author Response: We have reviewed our reference to figures in the text and could not find any errors.

3. I would suggest combining Figure 2-4 into a single figure (since most show no significance).

Author Response: Good suggestion. We had previously combined all these blots into a very large multi-panel figure but we felt this created confusion in terms of which aqp protein the images and graphs were corresponding to. We therefore elected to separate them and feel that this makes it much clearer for readers.

4. Arrow labeling isn't consistent on Figure 5.

Author Response: We have carefully reviewed the arrow labels on Figure 5 and how these are explained in the figure caption and how they are explained in the results text of the manuscript. We could not find any errors in these labels and how they are explained.

5. qPCR: Please provide evidence that 18s RNA (control).

Author Response: Thank you. The expression values for 18S in all organs of FW and BW reared larvae of this study are provided in the supplementary file for qPCR data. The validity of using 18s RNA was also previously shown by Jonusaite et al 2016. We have now included this reference with the statement about 18s RNA in the Methods section.

6. Provide df and F values for stats.

Author Response: We have now included an excel spreadsheet with all of the statistical values for the qPCR and western blot quantitative data. The spreadsheet is provided with supplementary data.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewer Comments.docx
Decision Letter - Dmitri Boudko, Editor

A comparison of aquaporin expression in mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti) that develop in hypo-osmotic freshwater and iso-osmotic brackish water.

PONE-D-20-16879R1

Dear Dr. Donini,

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.

Cheers,

Dmitri Boudko. PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Dmitri Boudko, Editor

PONE-D-20-16879R1

A comparison of aquaporin expression in mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti) that develop in hypo-osmotic freshwater and iso-osmotic brackish water.

Dear Dr. Donini:

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. Dmitri Boudko

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 .