Diversity of Gut Microbes in Adult Vespa velutina (Asian Hornet) Carcasses Killed by Natural Causes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Diversity of gut microorganisms in adult Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) killed by natural causes" is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the gut microbiome's diversity. With some refinement in the presentation and depth of discussion, it can significantly contribute to the field.

Major comments

1.       Consider having a native English speaker or professional editing service review the manuscript to ensure clarity and grammatical accuracy.

2.       The introduction provides a concise overview of the importance of the gut microbiome in health. However, giving specific examples of diseases linked to dysbiosis might be beneficial.

3.       Consider adding a brief historical perspective to show the evolution of microbiome research.

4.       Add references to recent reviews or primary articles when mentioning the role of the gut microbiome in health and disease.

5.       The sequencing method used needs to be elaborated. Explain the analysis methods used to analyze the data. 

6.       The statistical methods are briefly mentioned. It is crucial to provide more detail, primarily if specialized tests are conducted to analyze.

7.       The figures and tables are informative but could benefit from more precise labelling and legends.

8.       Some of the taxa mentioned are specific, while others are at a higher taxonomic level. It might be helpful to maintain consistency or explain the choice.

9.       Provide detailed legends that explain each figure and table thoroughly.

10.   Consider using supplementary material to provide additional data or explanations that might overwhelm the main text.

11.   The discussion effectively relates the findings to the existing literature. However, some statements are made without directly referencing the results.

12.   It would be helpful to have a more in-depth discussion about the potential mechanisms or implications of the findings.

 

13.   The conclusion succinctly summarizes the main findings. However, it might benefit from a forward-looking statement about the future of microbiome research or potential clinical implications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Diversity of gut microbes in adult Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) carcasses killed by natural causes” (ID: diversity-2634571).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

First, this article has been revised in view of the need for polishing.

Second, the examples mentioned in this paper are mainly pathogenic pathogen, such as Escherichia and Serratia are common pathogenic pathogen.

Third, a brief overview of microbiome studies is added.

Fourthly, references related to this study are added.

Fifth, detailed methods are described in detail in the references.

Sixth, the legend has been modified.

Seventh, the format and citation of references have been modified.

Eighth, due to the limitation of experimental materials, this experiment cannot be further conducted for the time being.

Ninth, we believe that the text may have explained the purpose of this study.

Finally, thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Meiling Pang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript suffer from several points. The authors have to comment the other paper regarding Asian hornet gut microbiome abundance. Morover, the aim of the study is not clear. Also, the authors speculate about pathogenic bacteria in gut content. The references cited in the text as well as in Reference list do not follow the requirements of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate changes are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Diversity of gut microbes in adult Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) carcasses killed by natural causes” (ID: diversity-2634571).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

First, another report on Vespa velutina focused on gut bacterial diversity and showed that Proteus and Lactobacillus (especially Lactobacillus and other lactic acid bacteria) may play an important role in Vespa velutina, without reference to gut fungal diversity. In addition, the health of Asian hornet is unknown and cannot be compared with this study.

Second, by comparing the intestinal microorganisms of natural dead and normal adult wasps, this study aims to identify the intestinal fungi and bacterial species composition and predict pathogenic bacteria of natural dead wasps Vespa velutina (Asian hornet).

Third, the document format has been modified according to the requirements of the journal.

Finally, thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Meiling Pang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article about fungi and intestinal bacteria in Vespa velutina. Material and methods described in an understandable way. The study determined the ITS2 sequence, the V3-V4 variant region and 16S rRNA. A large number of strains of bacteria and fungi were isolated. The results were presented in a clear and transparent manner. However, there is no statistical analysis and no indication of statistically significant differences.

Since differences in species diversity and the abundance of fungi and intestinal bacteria were found between VA and VN, it would be appropriate to collect data and compare them in pairs. It may be important to isolate a highly virulent bacterial strain (VA1).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Diversity of gut microbes in adult Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) carcasses killed by natural causes” (ID: diversity-2634571).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

First, there was no significance analysis in this study. This study only focused on the difference of intestinal microorganisms in different states of Vespa velutina, and the data involved in comparison were from the same population. In addition, a large number of similar articles did not carry out significance analysis, so we may think that it is not necessary to conduct significance analysis.

Second, in view of the need for pair comparison, this study was divided into two groups with three replicates in each group. We believe that the comparison between single individuals has randomness and one-sidedness, and the conclusion has certain limitations. In addition, we believe that the graphs in this paper are sufficient to express the purpose of this study.

Finally, thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Meiling Pang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised their paper but they still have a lot to edit.

Line 16-17. intestines collected from breeding sites were dissected – please, remove this. It is more appropriate for materials and methods section.

In Abstract section, authors should include which is abundant taxa according to the obtained results.

As I mentioned previously the authors should include in the Introduction the related research and the obtained results of similar but nothing of that has been done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    According to the suggestions, the abstract and preface of this paper are improved. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required