Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 19th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 5th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 18th, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 27th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 27, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Dr. Ávila-Lópezll and colleagues:

Thanks for revising your manuscript based on the concerns raised by the reviewer. I now believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations! I look forward to seeing this work in print, and I anticipate it being an important resource for groups studying nematode systematics, particularly the Yucatan fauna. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.

Best,

-joe

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript have been improved.

Experimental design

The manuscript have been improved.

Validity of the findings

The manuscript have been improved.

Additional comments

The revised manuscript has been improved in term of scientific logics.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

This manuscript is sutible for pubplishing in this journal.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 5, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Dr. Ávila-Lópezll and colleagues:

Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I have now received three independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, the reviewers raised some minor concerns about the research. Despite this, these reviewers are optimistic about your work and the potential impact it will have on research studying nematode systematics, particularly the Yucatan fauna. Thus, I encourage you to revise your manuscript, accordingly, taking into account all of the concerns raised by both reviewers.

While the concerns of the reviewers are relatively minor, this is a major revision to ensure that the original reviewers have a chance to evaluate your responses to their concerns. There are many suggestions, which I am sure will greatly improve your manuscript once addressed.

Please use the comments by the reviewers to add missing information where possible. Try to restructure your manuscript for clarity, avoiding redundancy and streamlining sections for effective delivery.

Therefore, I am recommending that you revise your manuscript, accordingly, taking into account all of the issues raised by the reviewers. I do believe that your manuscript will be greatly improved once these issues are addressed.

Good luck with your revision,

-joe

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Reviewer comments:
Interesting manuscript with novel information. Information supplied supported by Figures, Graphs and tables.

Title of manuscript:
‘First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity’. I would suggest that authors insert ‘Aedes aegypti’ in title as all work was done on this insect, suggestion to change title to:
‘First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán State, Mexico and their infectivity capacity against Aedes aegypti’
Is it Yucatán or Yucatan? Correct throughout manuscript
References:
I all references in text containing et al., you used et al., as non italic. According to me it should be in italic such as: (Chitra et al., 2017). Please check Journal preferences and correct throughout manuscript
Line 35: Always arrange keywords in alphabetical order – change accordingly
Line 43: Replace ‘plagues’ with ‘pests’
Line 47: Replace ‘cavities’ with ‘openings’
Line 55: Insert ‘on’ before ‘the availability of…..’
Line 60: Change ‘have been also isolated’ to ‘have also been isolated’
Line 73: ‘and evaluated their potential as larvicides of’ change to ‘and evaluate their biocontrol potential against’
Line 81: Replace ‘of plagues’ with ‘of pests’
Line 107: Replace ‘were obtained’ with ‘were collected’
Line 115: Delete ‘their’
Line 118-119: Rewrite as: Four G. mellonella larvae per flask were used and placed at room temperature for 5 days.
Line 185-185: ‘and a control per concentration (each concentration was replicated four
times), with mosquito larvae without nematodes.’ Change to: ‘and a control per concentration (mosquito larvae without nematodes) with each concentration replicated four times’
Line 205: Ae. aegypti should be italic
Line 226: Replace ‘places’ with ‘sites’
Line 241: ‘an unidentified species: Heterorhabditis sp.’ Here as well as in the rest of the manuscript you refer to the new species as Heterorhabditis sp. In Table 1 you refer to it as Heterorhabditis n. sp.
I think that since this is a new unnamed species you should change it throughout the manuscript to Heterorhabditis n. sp. Also change it in Figure 1
Line 260: Delete ‘its sister species’
Line 274: Delete ‘entomopathogenic nematodes’
Line 296: Insert state after Yucatán
Line 301: This is the first formal publication on EPN present in Yucatan soil….change to this is the first record of EPN present in Yucatán soil
I also see that you sometimes refer to Yucatán state and sometimes only to Yucatán and also to Yucatecan. I think you must decide on one and use and correct it throughout the manuscript.
Line 339: Delete ‘of’
Line 381: Delete ‘of’

Figure 1:
Change caption to: Map of Yucatán state showing the sites sampled for entomopathogenic nematodes. Sampling sites marked with red denote absence of EPNs, while sampling sites marked with blue and orange were positive for EPNs.
Table 1:
Insert state after Yucatán in heading
References:
Line 48: Peter & Ehlers, 1994. In references no 1994 only 1997 ??
Line 616: Nelson & Sommers, 1996….in references it is Nelson & Sumner, 1996 ??
Please go through references again and check that all are referred to in manuscript and visa versa

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.

Experimental design

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Validity of the findings

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.

Additional comments

General comments
The manuscript entitled: “First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity” describes the survey and identification of EPNs isolated from soil sample in Mexico. This is the first report of finding EPN in Yucatan, Mexico. The EPN, H. indica was molecularly identified and were used to infect the larvae of Aedes aegypti. Subsequently, the microbial community in the Ae. aegypti larvae was determined by high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. The techniques used are standard and well-presented and according to me. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal with minor revisions. English presented in the manuscript is acceptable with minor corrections.
Specific comments
1. Consider to change the title as “First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity for Aedes aegypti”
2. Line 76 use “Ae. albopictus” instead of “A. albopictus”.
3. Line 137 use “gene” instead of “gen”
4. Line 205 Ae. aegypti should be italic.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

Please add the accession number of EPN that you submitted in NCBI in manuscript.
Line 178 Change Tamura et al. 2013 to Tamura et al., 2013
Line 205 Ae aegypti should be italic letter
Line 230 How many isolates of H. indica and Heterorhabditis sp. have been identified? Please add isolate number in line 230.
Line 237 Change 1,092 pb to 1,092 bp
Line 251 Change 934 pb to 934 bp
Line 281 should be 16S rRNA not rRNA

Should be rewrite abstract.
1. Background, In this study, the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis indica and
23 Heterorhabditis sp. are reported for the first time from Yucatan, Mexico.
This sentence is your result. It is not background.

2. Objective, you purpose that to report EPNs from
1. to report the entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán soils, and
2) to determine the killing capacity and microbial community present in H. indica against Ae. aegypti mosquito larvae.

3. Methods, should be also write about the method of EPN identification

4. Result, First, sholud be write the result of EPNs species were isolated and identified. For example, Four isolates of Heterorhabditis were isolated from 144 soil samples. ...... isolates of H. indica and ....isolates of Heterorhabditis sp. (n=...) were identified.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.