Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Response of Cryptomeria japonica to Feeding Stress of Dendrolimus houi Lajonquière Larvae
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting paper on valuable information for understanding the molecular and genetic responses of Cryptomeria japonica to the feeding stress imposed by Dendrolimus houi larvae and I have done only a few comments. There are no problems with language or terminology. The results were presented very well, and only some issues would be better to make a little bit improved. I am sure that all points mentioned below will be able make better easily.
Introduction:
Basically, I`d suggest adding the very short statement about host plants of Dendrolimus larvae because host plant specialization is important for the survival of needle-eating caterpillars and my question is if Cryptomeria japonica is the principal host and if Dendrolimus houi Lajonquière is polyphagous species? Or Dendrolimus larvae are feeding on other hosts and they damage Cryptomeria japonica after decreasing of tree heakth after extreme weather and only due to the short-term migration.
Line 41-42 – add reference for statement C. japonica is increasingly exposed to various biotic factors, including D. houi.
Line 59 – just add very shortly if chemical control used to use in China against Dendrolimus.
Line 67: Please clarify sentences on resistance mechanisms: resistance to insects can be placed into three general categories: antixenosis, antibiosis, and tolerance (Kogan & Ortman, 1978; Painter, 1951) while tolerance is the ability of the host to withstand infestation while remaining relatively healthy compared to other individuals undergoing the same level of attack.
Line 67-74: Can you add another example for more closely related species? E.g. Dendrolimus pini? Or D. kikuchii? Or Thaumetopoea or Pityocampa?
M&M
Line 94: if it is possible use the branches for experiment instead seedlings? I thought the age of seedlings can be important for feeding and for the survival of caterpillars and can influence on results?
Line 137: Have house-keeping genes been randomly selected for qRT-PCR analysis to validate the accuracy of transcriptome sequencing?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript by Que et al. reports on the signaling pathways associated with C. japonica's resistance to D. houi larvae using next-generation transcriptome sequencing and a set of bioinformatic approaches for the analysis of transcriptome sequencing data. The manuscript overall is informative and well-written but lacks novelty. The data have been interpreted correctly, and there is little to criticize technically. The authors need to address a few minor issues.
In Table 1, it is necessary to correct the numbering of the primers (two primers with the same number). On line 184, the authors wrote: 'DEGs distribution across cellular components were enriched in the cells and membranes…,' but it needs to be noted that the membrane is part of the cell.
In my opinion, the scientific value and novelty of the article would be significantly higher for the scientific community if the authors had chosen for analysis not random genes but genes that could be markers in the selection of pest-resistant genotypes
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Response of Cryptomeria japonica to Feeding Stress of D.houi Larvae” revealed the response mechanism of C.japonica needles to pest infestation.
My major concern is: How this study will provide insight into the resistance mechanism of C.japonica to support better protection?
Further, the following is also required.
The larvae used for infestation were randomly selected; why were not age-synchronized larvae selected to bring uniformity?
- The picture of larvae infestation would support the manuscript.
- Please mention the function of the five genes selected for qPCR validation.
- The caption for Figure 2 (volcano plot) needs to be explained.
- Make sure to italicize the scientific names throughout the manuscript as not done in line 211.
- Some references are too old such as 1997; 1998 etc. It would be good if the updated references could be included.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have given detailed responses to the queries and I believe that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
