Effects of Antheraea pernyi on Parasitization of Kriechbaumerella dendrolimi by Using Immunology and Metabolomics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well-written paper, and I thought the study yielded useful insights to physiological responses to parasitism by a hymenopteran parasitoid. I only had a few small edits on rearranging words/phrasing on just a few sentences, and my comments were made using the comment tools and are in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered each point and have provided detailed responses below, accompanied by the corresponding revisions in the manuscript as highlighted in track changes. We highly appreciate the opportunity to improve our manuscript and hope that our revisions have adequately addressed your concerns. Please see the document for details
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear colleagues,
I red your manuscript with great interest. These data can be a backbone of integrated pest management procedures. But in this relation I have pay my attention to these remark from Conclusion section:
The synthesis of these substances may serve as molecular modification targets to enhance mass rearing efficiency of K. dendrolimi.
It would be better if you consider this possibility more detail in Discussion section. In present version of manuscript this statement looks insufficiently justified.
Also I must point out on the minor shortcomings like non-italicized latin names in the lines 375 and 394.
Best wishes!
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have thoroughly reviewed your comments and have made detailed amendments to the manuscript, which are clearly marked in the document using track changes. We are grateful for the chance to enhance our paper and believe that the modifications made effectively address your observations.Please see the document for details
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
The manuscript by Que et al., investigates the parasitic relationship between Kriechbaumerella dendrolimi and Antheraea pernyi pupae, focusing on host immune response and metabolic changes post-parasitization. Significant upregulation of immune factors and differential metabolite expression in the host, indicating a complex interplay between parasitism duration, immune response, and metabolic changes obtained by the authors. The findings offer insights for optimizing mass-rearing techniques and potential targets for immune regulation in hosts. I have several comments to improve the clarity of this manuscript.
Title: Remove the author names of the parasitoid. If you decide on this, please also provide the author name of A. pernyi.
Abstract:
L15: Provide the order and families of both insects.
L21: Please let readers know the meaning of these abbreviations, e.g., what is SOD (Superoxide dismutase).
L32: Use "fluctuations" instead of "rise and fall trend."
L42: Add the Order and Family of the pest.
L45: Add the Order and Family of the parasitoid.
L47: Where is the author name of D. punctatus? Who first identified this species?
L56: Replace "foreign" with "exogenous" or "extrinsic."
L78: Indicate time intervals here.
There should be a section on data analysis. Authors should provide detailed data analysis, since in their figures, I noticed large variations in standard errors (deviation) of means. There is no information on which multiple or pairwise comparison tests were performed to compare the means across the time intervals or with CK.
Results:
L192: Please provide statistical values, e.g., F, df, p-values, and also indicate which multiple or pairwise comparison tests were performed for comparisons.
L202: Figure 1. I would change the legend of this figure to "Changes in immune factors of A. pernyi pupae after parasitization by K. dendrolimi as a function of time." Let readers know which multiple comparison test was used for mean grouping! Additionally, provide detailed information on the analysis methods performed for these comparisons. Did you transform data to meet assumptions of normality? Are the lines indicating standard error or deviation of means along with letters?
L219: Figure 2. Indicate the meaning of CK or other AP8h, AP16h, AP32h.
Discussion: The authors should provide a much more detailed discussion part.
L273: The authors should discuss the time interval-dependent response of the parasitoid, as it is an important and novel part of this study.
Conclusions:
L317: Do you mean in the artificial rearing of K. dendrolimi on the alternative host? Please check this sentence.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript generally well written.
Author Response
We are grateful for your constructive feedback. After thorough consideration, we have addressed each of your points with comprehensive responses and have implemented amendments within the manuscript, which are indicated in track changes. We value the chance to refine our work and trust that our modifications meet your considerations.Please see the document for details
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Integrate comments and suggestions as indicated in the manuscript.
2. Regarding treatment, emphasize what specific control treatment as basis for the immune responses
3. indicate how many trials were conducted.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
minor editing
Author Response
We're truly grateful for your valuable feedback. After thoughtful consideration of your suggestions, we've articulated our point-by-point responses and implemented amendments within our manuscript, which are duly marked using track changes for easy identification. We cherish this chance to refine our work and are hopeful that our enhancements satisfactorily address your points of concern.Please see the document for details
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
