Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 15th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 25th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 10th, 2015 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 14th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

I have gone through your line-by-line response and the original comments carefully. I noted that extensive editing is done and the quality of the manuscript has been improved. Based on the reviewer's comment and personal cross checking of the revised version, I am happy to inform you that your manuscript has been considered to be acceptable.

However, at this juncture, I would like to request you to add a small paragraph to the discussion section regarding the "future prospect of this study". You may also self declare some of the shortcomings which could not be accommodated in this manuscript such as metabolic labeling and characterization of the metabolites by MALDI-MS. At least pointing these aspects will really make this manuscript a perfect one. Please pay attention on the language, grimmer and spellings at this stage and if possible, by a native English speaker.

I congratulate once again to you for considering PeerJ as a suitable journal for your manuscript.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors,

Your MS is now reviewed by 3 independent experts. While the manuscript is of general interest, I believe that there are some additional experiments and extensive rewriting is needed before the MS can be finally accepted. In general, there is concern/suggestions about the detection of metabolic intermediates and shading light on the bio-chemical pathway involved in such. I personally believe that addition of such points will highly improve your manuscript quality.

·

Basic reporting

It is an interesting piece of work and the findings were represented with great clarity in the language and with the help of tables and figures. The article needs some minor corrections in the text and a few clarifications. One of the reference mentioned in text is missing in the bibliography.

Experimental design

The experiments were carefully designed to address the hypothesis. But sample processing for GC-MS analysis and MS programming information should be shared in detail.

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

No comments

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

See below

Experimental design

See below

Validity of the findings

See below

Comments for the author

Basic observation:

The manuscript entitled with “Pharmacophagy in green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Chrysopa spp.)” submitted by Aldrich et al. is a good manuscript with potential, but not satisfactory at this stage due to several problems. In this manuscript the authors have attempted to investigate/compare the endogenous production of a pheromone in male in wild type and laboratory conditions. The findings are of interest, but lacks proper controls and references and further experimental data is required to justify their conclusions.

Here are some of the general and specific comments:

a) Abstract is not well written and lengthy. It need to be shortened and made precise.
b) The exact objective/s of the study is not clear and need to be mentioned in the light of proper citations.
c) The application side of this study (potential pest control etc.) need to be discussed in the context properly.
d) Introduction section is poorly written and it needs extensive modification.
e) The organization of results section need editing and rearrangement. The figures must be organized from bigger to smaller scale such as animal, gland and extracts and small compounds.

Specific comments:

a) In some context, the authors claim is without based on any specific experimental data. The authors have discussed about the “chemical reaction” but have not provided any evidence in support of that. To prove this idea more experimental evidences are required.
b) To understand the basis of chemical structure determined, the NMR/MALDI-MS data will be required.
c) The authors should “confirm” their claim by using a proper “metabolic labelling” experiment where a precursor with radio-labelled/spin-labelled isotope. Such a probe can be added in the food and production of the derivatives in laboratory conditions should be analysed.
d) The possible bio-chemical pathway involved in such process of Pheromone production should be indicated and discussed in details.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Comments for the author

This paper reports the Goldeneyed lacewing males, Chrysopa oculata (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), which produces (1R,2S,5R,8R)-iridodial as
an aggregate from specialized dermal glands on the abdomen. It was also shown that seemingly normal laboratory-reared males of C. oculata do not produce iridodial. Feeding studies with C. oculata further demonstrate that males of these predatory insects fed one of the common aphid sex pheromone components, (1R,4aS,7S,7aR)- nepetalactol, sequester this compound and convert it to the stereochemically correct lacewing pheromone isomer of iridodial. The experimental designs were mostly carried out correctly. This present manuscript fits well Peer J readership’s interests and may become suitable for publications, however, few more additional experiments can covert this manuscript a much better one.
The authors should provide quantitative and qualitative data on the pheromone produced by individual animals and also a time point distribution (how much is produced in each day). Identifying the metabolic intermediates is also important.

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.