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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 24th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 7th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 16th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 16th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 16, 2016 · Academic Editor


All the minor concerns about this manuscript were answered, this manuscript is accepted. Congratulations.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 7, 2016 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

We have good news for you - three reviewers were consistently extremely positive about your manuscript and identified only minor grammatical errors. Please go through the comments raised by reviewers and update your manuscript before we formally accept it.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The paper meets these standards.

Experimental design

It is a well designed study and certainly meets these standard.

Validity of the findings

The findings are valid.

Additional comments

There are several sentences that need work.
line 22. delete 'outbreaks', it was said earlier in the sentence
line 40. delete 'by the insect' .
There are a number of places where in bold it says 'Error! Reference source not found' I do not know what this means.
Line 128 and 129. Delete second 'both'
Line 233. Delete 'is'

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Basic reporting: The paper is well-done, though there are some grammatical issues (see below). It is the appropriate length. I would have liked to see some thoughts on the activity of cuticle-related transcripts, which to some extent show some coordinate regulation. Figures and tables are appropriate

l. 21 “a large outbreak of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) outbreak in British Columbia”

l. 39 “Because of the recent move of this insect across the Rocky Mountains by the insect and into the jack pine forests”

l. 120 “representing 4.43% of the 13,088 gene models” sounds like there are 13,088 models. Is the meaning here 13, 088 predicted genes?

l. 230 “One transcript that was annotated as an alcohol dehydrogenase increased significantly between September and November, but does not show a significant decrease in transcription during the spring months” please identify

l. 232 “Because transcript expression data is doesn’t necessarily correspond to functional protein levels in the cell,”

Experimental design

: no problems here.

Validity of the findings

Validity of the findings: one potential minor problem is that the RNA-Seq data are not verified by qRT-PCR. A statement about the reliability of the method (i.e. referencing Huber’s previous work with the technique) would help.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript by Robert et al. presents a transcriptomic analysis of mountain pine beetle larvae collected at various periods spanning the beginning and end of overwintering. The structure of the article conforms to PeerJ standards and is written in clear, professional English.

Experimental design

The experimental design is very good and the authors went to great lengths in making sure the transcriptomic data is solid, by performing biological replicates. This design compensates for the lack of validation by Q-PCR, which is usually required in this type of study.

Validity of the findings

No comments

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.