Unravelling the Current Status of Rice Stripe Mosaic Virus: Its Geographical Spread, Biology, Epidemiology, and Management

Response to Reviewer-1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Also, thanks for your suggestions and comments of the manuscript. They are very helpful, and I am so grateful for your instructions and I am moved by your sincerity. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted red in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Thank you for the clarification. We hope after substantial improvement of the MS, contribution might be improved.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

We wish, now it is more organized and comprehensive.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

These criteria improved substantially after significant revision of the MS.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?        

Now references are more adequate and related to the work.

Is the English used correct and readable?            

We have substantially improved the English by English editing service.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: Please find my comments in the attached MS.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed point by point corrections based on your comments. We have extracted comments from your correction at the MS and highlighted the correction with red in the text.

Comments 1: In the sentence discussing pathological synergetic effects between RSMV and other viruses, it would be important to explicitly mention the concept of coinfection.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, briefly we have mentioned co-infection in the abstract and explicitly in the text and highlighted red.

Comments 2: Consider beginning the introduction by first discussing the host organism, followed by an overview of the associated diseases, and then introducing the virus in question. This structure will provide a clear context for the reader, helping to establish the significance of the host-pathogen relationship before delving into the specifics of the viral infection.

Response: We agree and thank you for the very professional comments. We have, accordingly, modified the introductory to emphasize this point.

Comments 3: Please provide an image of symptomatic plants.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. In figure 3, we have presented various phenotypes and symptoms of RSMV infection in rice. Fig. 3A; infected plants in the field.

Comments 4: It may be more accurate to avoid the word 'summarize' in describing the goals of this review, as the paper does more than just summarize recent advancements. Instead, consider rephrasing to emphasize the comprehensive presentation and analysis of the latest findings on RSMV infection, including its geographic distribution, symptoms, yield impact, disease cycle, and management strategies.

Response: Thank you very much for the nice rephrasing. We have substituted in the text.

Comments 5: If the geographic distribution discussed is primarily confined to China, it would be helpful to specify this in the subtitle. Clarifying the region in the subtitle will provide readers with a more precise understanding of the scope of the review.

Response: We have mentioned this suggestion in the subtitle as “Geographic distribution of the RSMV infection in Southern China”.

Comments 6: It’s unclear what is meant by 'review analysis' in this context. If you're referring to findings from a review of the literature, it would be clearer to state that directly. Consider rephrasing to something like, 'Our review of the literature revealed that diseased plants exhibited yellow striped leaves, slight dwarfing, occasional twisting, and a mosaic appearance.' This would make the source of the information clearer to the reader.

Response: Thank you very much for this correction. We have changed accordingly, which is much more effective to the context.

Comments 7: This sentence is a bit unclear and difficult to follow. It seems to be combining two different ideas. Consider rephrasing it to clarify the meaning. For example: 'RSMV and other rice viruses are transmitted persistently by planthoppers, resulting in various effects on infected plants.' This separates the transmission mechanism from the effects on the plants, making the sentence clearer.

Response: Thank you. This rephrasing is much better than previous. We have rephrased in the text.

Comments 8: The phrase 'Yield and quality reduction to the crops is the common feature due to crop pathogen infection' is somewhat unclear and awkward. To improve clarity, you might rephrase it as: 'Crop pathogen infections commonly lead to reductions in both yield and quality.' This rephrasing makes the relationship between pathogen infection and its impact on crop yield and quality more direct and comprehensible.

Response: Corrected in the text.

Comments 9: This sentence could be improved for clarity by rephrasing it as: 'RSMV infection progresses through several stages, including transmission, entry, replication, systemic movement, and symptom development

Response: Rephrased in the text as per suggestion.

Comments 10: This passage reads as somewhat repetitive. To enhance clarity and variety, consider revising it to differentiate between the different aspects of the infection cycle. For example: 'Infected rice serves as the primary source of infection, providing a habitat where both vectors and the virus can overwinter. Vectors acquire the virus by feeding on infected plants and subsequently transmit it to new hosts, perpetuating the cycle from one season to the next.

Response: We have clarified this rephrasing in the text. Thank you.

Comments 11: This sentence is somewhat repetitive and complex, which can make it difficult to follow. To improve readability and reduce monotony, consider breaking it into clearer, more concise statements. For example: 'Mixed viral infections in insect vectors can lead to synergistic effects that enhance virus-virus interactions. These interactions can result in the emergence of new variants with novel pathological features, leading to unpredictable pathological and epidemiological consequences.'

Response: we have rephrased the sentences for easy understanding.

Comments 12: The sentence starting with 'Further:' is unclear and could be made more precise. Consider rephrasing it as: 'Further studies suggest that non-enveloped RSMV particles aggregate at the periphery of viroplasms and directly target the outer membranes of Pns11-induced autophagosomes.

Response: We agreed the rephrasing and thank you.

Comments 13: The sentence appears somewhat repetitive. To enhance clarity, consider rephrasing it as: 'Changes in climatic factors, such as temperature and altered rainfall patterns, influence pathogen behavior by affecting their geographical distribution, seasonal phenology, and population dynamics.'

Response: We agreed the rephrasing and thank you.

Comments 14: his passage is somewhat unclear. To improve clarity, consider rephrasing it as: 'Additionally, temperature variations can impact the population dynamics of rice pathogens by affecting factors such as survival and overwintering rates, infection efficiency, and the duration of latency periods. Consequently, these changes can alter the frequency and intensity of diseases in a given region.' This revision makes the relationships between temperature, pathogen dynamics, and disease patterns more explicit.

Response: With thanks, we agreed this change. It makes clearer for understanding

Comments 15: The phrase 'built up' is somewhat informal and can be replaced with a more precise term. Consider rephrasing it as: 'We constructed an unrooted phylogenetic tree using multiple sequence alignment data.'

Response: Corrected in the text.

Comments 16: The term 'classified' might not be the best fit here. To enhance clarity, consider rephrasing the sentence as: 'The results categorized RSMV and other plant virus protein family members into five subgroups: Clade I through Clade V. Among these, Clade V was the largest, comprising 26 members (44.83%).' This revision provides a clearer description of the findings.

Response: Corrected in the text.

Comments 17: The sentence has some grammatical issues and could be clearer. Consider revising it to: 'Some of the strategies we described here could be implemented to combat RSMV infection.

Response: Corrected in the text.

Comments 18: The sentence could be more impactful with a slight rephrasing. Consider changing it to: 'Therefore, it is crucial to determine effective methods for protecting rice seedlings from viral infections in nurseries'.

Response: Corrected in the text. Thank you.

Comments 19: It would be helpful to include details on its composition, source, and mechanism of action. This additional information will give readers a better understanding of how the extract works and its relevance to the study. The phrase 'successively induced resistance' could be unclear or misleading. It might be better to clarify the nature of the effect.

Response: Thank you for the very professional comment. We have revised as “Application of Pseudomonas fluorescence and Azospirillum irakense at 10⁸ CFU/ml, Sea force extract and Elsa fungicide at 1 ml/L induced systemic resistance in wheat and barley against barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV)” in the text.

Comments 20: It seems like you might be referring to "streptomycin" rather than "streptocyclin.

Response: Thank you. According to published data (Ref 117), it is antibiotic streptocycline

Comments 21: Consider this version: Social media can be utilized by scientists to communicate with colleagues both within and outside their field, as well as to engage with the public.

Response: Thank you. We have rephrased.

Comments 22: The sentence is somewhat cluttered with commas, which affects readability. Consider revising it to: 'Therefore, multidisciplinary collaboration between evolutionary plant pathologists and geneticists is needed to design effective management practices that maximize the host plant defense while minimizing the opportunities for pathogens to develop.' This revision removes unnecessary commas and clarifies the intended meaning.

Response: Thank you. We have rephrased as suggested.

Comments 23: The conclusions section includes references, which may be excessive and detract from the main points being summarized. It would be beneficial to streamline the references to focus on the most relevant and recent studies. This will help make the conclusions more concise and directly aligned with the key findings of the paper.

Response: Thank you. We have edited the conclusion section.

Comments 24: The future perspectives could be more concise and focused on actionable insights rather than listing numerous potential directions. This will enhance the readability and impact of the conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your professional suggestion. We have revised the future perspectives in the conclusion section. We hope, now it is focused on more actionable insights.

Comments 25: The opening of the conclusion could be more precise and engaging. The current phrasing is somewhat vague and could be improved for clarity.

Response: Thank you. We have edited the conclusion section.

Comments 26: This was mentioned in the above sections (introduction). I noticed that the conclusions section repeats some of the content from the introduction. To enhance the clarity and impact of the conclusions, it would be helpful to focus on summarizing the key findings and implications of the study without reintroducing material already covered in the introduction. Consider revising the conclusions to emphasize the novel insights and contributions of the research rather than reiterating background information.

Response: Thank you for the very important comment. We have substantially improved the conclusion section based on your suggestions. We hope now it is clearer in summarizing the key information of this article.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Extensive editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you very much for comment on the English of our article. We have extensively revised and edited the whole manuscript by an expert for substantial improvement of the article. We hope, it is far better than previous. However, if further editing is necessary, we are very willing having comments regarding this.

Response to Reviewer-2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Also, thanks for your suggestions and comments of the manuscript. They are very helpful, and I am so grateful for your instructions and I am moved by your sincerity. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted red in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Thank you for the clarification. We hope after substantial improvement, contribution might be improved.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

We wish, now it is more organized and comprehensive.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

These criteria improved substantially after significant improvement of the MS.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?

Now references are more adequate and related to the work.

Is the English used correct and readable?            

We have substantially improved the English by English editing expert.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: The review looks better in term of the topic, However, at many places the writeup seems very exhaustive which need to be reduced. The basic information on transmission, and life cycle is to be described well with time duration. My other comments are indicated as track changes in the MS

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed point by point corrections based on your comments. We have extracted comments from your correction at the MS and highlighted the correction with red in the text. We have reduced most redundant and less important writeup following your suggestions. Moreover, transmission and life cycle have been well described in the revised MS. Even, RSMV is transmitted by the leafhopper Recilia dorsalis, but the characteristics of its transmission have not been sufficiently studied. 

Comments 1: RSMV infection is the most prevalent virus infection in rice in recent times

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this rephrasing. Therefore, we have modified in the text.

Comments 2: It would be better to indicate the first report of RSMV with the location as well as its spread/introduction in China, if reported elsewhere.

Response: Thank you for the professional comment. The RSMV was first detected in southern China in 2015 and reported in 2017 (Yang et al., 2017). We have incorporated in the text.

Comments 3: Transmission cycle may be explained with time period during each stage in figure and writeup.

Response: Transmission cycle have been described in the revised MS. Even, RSMV is transmitted by the leafhopper Recilia dorsalis, but the characteristics of its transmission have not been sufficiently studied and the time period for individual stage is not reported yet.

Comments 4: Paragraph may be improvised as review rather than research paper results and writeup should be reduced to 25%

Response: Thank you for the very professional suggestion. We have improved the writeup through reducing as well as following style for review paper.

Comments 5: Write may be reduced to 50%

Response: Thank you. We reduced the writeup as much as possible to maintain the flow through. 

Comments 6: Cite the reference

Response: Done

Comments 7: Cite the reference

Response: Done

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you very much for comment on the English of our article. We have extensively revised and edited the whole manuscript by an expert for substantial improvement of the article. We hope, it is far better than previous. However, if further editing is necessary, we are very willing having comments regarding this.

Response to Reviewer-3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Also, thanks for your suggestions and comments of the manuscript. They are very helpful, and I am so grateful for your instructions and I am moved by your sincerity. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted red in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: The manuscript “Unraveling current status and defense mechanisms of rice stripe mosaic virus (RSMV): its transmission, symptoms, viral interaction and yield loss” is a review about RSMV.

 In my opinion the quality of this review needs to be improved for publication. RSMV is a recent described virus species. Therefore, there is little information about it published. I guess the authors wrote a lot of basic information about phytopathology. Also, most of the figures they use in the manuscript were already published by other authors in other already published papers.  

 I recommend the authors change the focus of work. They can contribute to more practical insights about the disease epidemiology and genetic resistance for control. Also, they can contribute with deeper genetic analysis and using a virological basement.  

Below I pointed out some specific corrections and comments, but it is necessary a profound revision on English language and style.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and professional comments in order to improve the writeup. We have tried our best to cope most suggestions from your efforts. However, we sincerely express our weakness for the lacking of this review. We have tried to organize most of the recent information regarding RSMV infection and their possible threat of outbreak. As it is very recently detected virous and reported only some specific regions of China, still large work remains to be done from this limited information. We have substantially improved the writeup focusing the main target of this review. We have discussed a little about genetic resistance for control. However, still sorry that, we could not improve as expected.   

Please find the detailed point by point corrections based on your comments.

Comments 1: Abstract: Lines 15 and 43: Please change:  Cytorhabdovirus with first capital letter. Line 17: Please change for: is transmitted by

line 18-19 . Confusing sentence. Suggestion : The adult vector can hibernates,  transmits the virus  and lay eggs on rice plants. Finally, multiplies in subsequent generations...

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have addressed all the changes in the text and highlighted red.

Comments 2: 2. Geographic spread of the RSMV – RSMV only occurs in China? Please make a sentence stating this in the beggining of section.

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point.

Comments 3: 5. RSMV infection cycle

Line 199 -201 It is not clear for me the epidemiology. How can the vectors overwinter in infected rice? This sentence does not reflect what is written below.

Response: Thank you for the very professional comment. We have revised the statement.

Comments 4: 8. Genome structure of RSMV and PPI Network with other Plant Viruses

Lines 333- 344. The phylogenetic analysis you have performed need to be more detailed. How did you perform multiple alignments? Did you perform the alignments with each individual gene? Or did you perform it using the concatenated gene sequences?  It is not clear for me since you said the number of genes you have chosen for each viruses species is different. Why did you choose these viruses species? Why did you choose these specifically genes?  Why did you not perform the analysis as recommended by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) for the subfamily Betarhabdovirinae where the Cytorhabdovirus genus is included? (using full-length L sequences).

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the missing of important element of the article. We have tried to improve our writeup following your suggestions in this section mostly in figure legend. Hope, it gives more clarification now. Alignments were performed using the concatenated gene sequences. In this section, our main target was to find out the similarities between RSMV with other plant species viruses. For that we collected different plant species viruses which have been reported. Then we performed alignments and finally created a phylogenetic tree to find the same subgroups because same subgroup viruses might have similar type functions.

Comments 5: Fig.5 : The names of viruses genes should be standardized. It is recommended to highlight the RSMV in the phylogenetic tree.

Response: Thank you for the remarks. We have updated accordingly. Genes description are summarized in the table1. We have highlight the RSMV by circles in the phylogenetic tree.

Comments 6: 9.4. Lines 465-466 You said before there are not resistant rice cultivars to RSMV yet. So, you can not recommend the adoption of resistant plants. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We agreed this comment and revised the MS accordingly.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Extensive editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you very much for comment on the English of our article. We have extensively revised and edited the whole manuscript by an expert for substantial improvement of the article. We hope, it is far better than previous. However, if further editing is necessary, we are very willing having comments regarding this.

Response to Reviewer-4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Also, thanks for your suggestions and comments of the manuscript. They are very helpful, and I am so grateful for your instructions and I am moved by your sincerity. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted red in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Thank you for the clarification. We hope after substantial improvement of the MS, contribution might be improved.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

We wish, now it is more organized and comprehensive.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

These criteria improved substantially after significant revision of the MS.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?        

Now references are more adequate and related to the work.

Is the English used correct and readable?            

We have substantially improved the English by English editing service.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: The comments and suggestions are in the attached file.

The English used in the article is not up to standard. Authors must engage the services of English editing experts to help with sentence construction and grammar. Also, storyline to this article can be improved if some sections are shifted and some paragraphs reconstructed. I have made some suggestions of sections and paragraphs that may need to be shifted and/or reconstructed in the comments below. Overall, the manuscript needs to be reorganized so that there is better flow of ideas for this seemingly emerging disease.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed point by point corrections based on your comments. We have extracted comments from your correction at the attached file and highlighted the correction with red in the text.

Comments 1: Line 2-4. The title can be modified to reflect the content of the manuscript. I propose that it reads as follows:- Unravelling the current status of the rice strip mosaic virus: its geographical spread, biology, epidemiology and management options

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this change. Therefore, we have modified the title accordingly.

Comments 2: Line 15-35. The Abstract needs to be improved. There are grammatical and sentence construction errors.

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the abstract to emphasize this point and highlighted red in the text.

Comments 3: Line 39-101. The Introduction can also benefit from English language editing and the use of correct scientific terminologies. For example, in Line 56, the authors say “Likewise, RSMV is one of the most prevalent rice infections in recent time in China, and experienced yield losses to 30-40% due to heavily affected rice fields by this virus.” RSMV is NOT an infection but a pathogen that infects rice. It does not experience yield loss to 30-40% but it causes yield losses of between 30-40%.

Response: Thank you very much for the very professional comments and suggestion which helped in substantial improvement of this MS. We have very carefully revised and edited English throughout the text. We hope, now scientific terminology is fit to science. For example, we have changed as “Likewise, RSMV infection is the most prevalent virus infection in rice in recent times, that caused yield losses between 30-40%”.

Comments 4: Line 59. Please indicate what R. dorsalis is in full first before abbreviating it.

Response: Done; Recilia dorsalis

Comments 5: Line 64. A virus does not contaminate rice fields. Rather, talk of the incidence of infection…

Response: Corrected accordingly.

Comments 6: Line 102-129 Is the RSMV only present in China so far? If so, make this clear in the first paragraph of the section.

Response: We have mentioned this suggestion in the text as “The RSMV was first detected in southern China in 2015 and was first reported in 2017. Till now, the occurrence of RSMV infection in rice plant has been detected and reported only in China so far.

Comments 7: Line 122-123 Specify that the virus exhibits greater genetic variance.

Response: Thank you, we have specified this in the text following your suggestion.

Comments 8: Line 142 This sentence must either be deleted from this subsection on disease symptoms (section 3) or moved to the subsection that talks about yield losses (section 4).

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have moved this sentence to the subsection 4.

Comments 9: Line 141-160 Whole section needs to be revised so that symptom description is not repeated in the two paragraphs. Also, some of the intended descriptions and explanations are lost due to poor English language command.

Response: We have revised the whole section to maintain the flow of the content. Now, symptom description is not repeated. Also, we hope, English command is okay now.

Comments 10: Line 181-182 Make this the introductory sentence to the section on yield loss (section 4)

Response: We have replaced with modification as the introductory of the section 4.

Comments 11: Line 205 The active leafhoppers act as the primary agents for virus transmission

Response: Corrected in the text.

Comments 12: Line 238-266 This paragraph gives general information on virus mixed infections in plants. It does not say much about the virus of interest in this article. I suggest you summarize the first paragraph so that more effort is dedicated to the pathogen of interest (i.e., RSMV) in subsequent paragraphs.

Response: Thank you for the so professional suggestion. We have summarized the first paragraph. Also, edited the subsequent paragraph for correct flow of the context.

Comments 13: Line 292-316. I would expect this section to explain/discuss the impact of climatic factors on RSMV disease dynamics. However, from Line 307, a different angle is pursued by the writers. Kindly ensure that this is corrected accordingly.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The second paragraph some what distract the flow of the content. We have revised and corrected accordingly.

Comments 14: Line 318 Define what PPI is at the first time of use.

Response: Defined at their first-time use.

Comments 15: Line 318-381. I would describe the genomic structure of the virus first before looking at many other epidemiological factors. This section should come immediately after the Geographical spread section.

Response: Thank you very much. We have edited this section. We have described the genomic structure of the RSMV at the place where we have introduced the RSMV in details at the introduction section.

Comments 16: Line 388. Not clear which techniques the authors refer to.

Response: We have revised this section substantially for the clearance of the content.

Comments 17: Line 460-461 RSMV is not a soilborne disease. So, this is not how crop rotation acts to control the disease.

Response: We have revised this statement accordingly, so that, it signifies the discussion.  

Comments 18: Line 467-480 Authors mention the use of insecticides, biocontrol agents or cultural practices to get rid of the vectors. Which group of insecticides can be used? Which biocontrol agents control the leafhoppers?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have included some example and hope that, it will improve the integrity of the article. We made inoculation as “As examples, NC-170 [4-chloro-5- (6-chloro-3-pyridylmethoxy)-2-(3, 4-dichlorophenyl)-pyridazin-3(2H)-one] strongly inhibited metamorphosis, oviposition and embryogenesis of R. dorsalis, and the affected insects could not develop into normal adults (Miyake et al., 1991). Populations of the leaf hopper (Nephotettix virescens) had been kept controlled by natural enemies such as damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) and a fungal disease of the hopper (Ooi, 2015)”.

Comments 19: Line 554 What is the scientific name of the sea force plant? Include it for easier communication with the international community.

Response: Thank you for asking this clarification. Actually, sea force extract solution is organic fertilizer prepared from sea algae extracts supplemented with microelements (2.03% B, 4.81% MgO, 3.91% S, 0.23% Mo and 9.78% SO3), contain 21.15% organic matter. We have clarified this in the text.

Comments 20: Line 566 Kora et al. Is this article cited and does it have a publication year?

Response: Thank you for pointing out this missing. We have included the publication year in the text. Corrected as “In a leaf-detached assay, Kora et al. (2020) used 30-day-old rice leaf powder for silver nanoparticle (AgNP) synthesis, where 20ppm of AgNP completely controlled sheath blight disease in rice”.

Comments 21: Line 587-589 These can be discussed in sections above.

Response: We have removed this sentence as already mentioned in previous section.

Comments 22: Line 590 RSMV is not soilborne. So this is not applicable

Response: Thank you for pointing out this inapplicable insertion. We have removed this from the text.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Extensive editing of English language required

Response: Thank you very much for the comment on the English of our article. We have extensively revised and edited the whole manuscript by an expert for substantial improvement. We hope, it is far better than previous. However, if further editing is necessary, we are very willing having comments regarding this.

Round-2

Response to Reviewer-1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for reviewing the revised version of this manuscript. I am grateful for your instructions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted red in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Thank you for the clarification. We hope after further work, contribution is improved now.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

We wish, this point improved significantly.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

We hope this point has been improved.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?        

Now references are more adequate and related to the work.

Is the English used correct and readable?            

After further checking, English has been improved.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: Please find my comments in the attached MS.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to further reviewing of this manuscript. Please find the detailed point by point corrections based on your comments. We have extracted comments from your correction at the MS and highlighted the correction with red in the text.

Comments 1: I’d like to point out that while rice is indeed a major cereal crop, we typically refer to the grain when discussing consumption. It might enhance clarity to rephrase the sentence to reflect that we consume the rice grain, rather than the crop itself. For example, you could say, 'Rice is the most widely grown cereal grain consumed around the world.' This distinction helps to convey the idea more accurately.

Response: Thank you very much for this nicer and necessary correction. We agree with this comment, Therefore, corrected in the MA.

Comments 2: I noticed that the sentence includes both 'Till now' and 'so far,' which are somewhat redundant. To improve clarity and flow, you might consider rephrasing it like this: 'To date, the occurrence of RSMV-infected rice plants has only been detected and reported in China.

Response: We agree and thank you for the very professional comments. We have, accordingly, modified in the text.

Comments 3: To improve clarity and avoid repetition in the sentence, you might consider rephrasing it to streamline the use of 'yield' and 'quality.' For example, instead of 'reductions in both yield and quality, and frequently occurring viruses have the potential to cause significant losses in seed yield and seed quality,' you could say something like 'Crop pathogen infections often reduce both yield and quality, with frequent viral infections having the potential to cause significant losses in seed production and quality.' This avoids repetition and keeps the meaning clear.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We have corrected as suggestion.

Comments 4: In the section discussing the movement of RSMV within the vector, the word 'spread' is used multiple times. To improve clarity and flow, you might consider varying the language. For example, instead of 'spread,' you could use terms like 'moved,' 'progressed,' or 'was detected.' This would help maintain the reader's engagement.

Response: Thank you very much for the nice suggestions. We have substituted in the text.

Comments 5: In the sentence discussing viral pathogenicity, the word 'plants' is used twice. I believe using 'hosts' or 'crops' instead might be more fitting, as it better reflects the agricultural context and broadens the application beyond just plants.

Response: We have replaced accordingly.

Comments 6: In the sentence, 'RSMV' is repeated multiple times in close succession. To improve readability, it might be helpful to rephrase the sentence to reduce redundancy. For example, after the first mention, you could replace some instances with 'the virus' or restructure the sentence to avoid overusing the abbreviation.

Response: Thank you very much for this correction. We have changed accordingly, which increased the readability of the article.

Comments 7: Please provide reference for this. The term 'morphology' suggests structural changes, which might not be as readily adaptable as physiological changes. It could be more appropriate to focus on improvements in physiology or other traits like genetic resistance, rather than suggesting changes to morphology, which are generally more fixed.

Response: Thank you. This rephrasing is much better than previous. We have rephrased in the text.

Comments 8: I would recommend revising the phrase 'economically and ecologically generous way of controlling plant disease.' The term 'generous way' feels somewhat vague and may not convey the intended meaning effectively. Additionally, the phrase 'controlling plant disease' may imply complete eradication, which isn't always achievable. Perhaps we could consider alternatives like 'Crop rotation has been widely accepted as an economically and ecologically sustainable method for managing plant disease.' This revision emphasizes the positive aspects of crop rotation while acknowledging that it is more about management than complete control.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. After correction accordingly, it is much better than previous version.

Comments 9: I noticed that the phrase 'reduce diseases' might not accurately convey the intended meaning. Perhaps we could consider alternatives like 'mitigate the impact of diseases' or 'prevent the occurrence of diseases' for better clarity. This way, we emphasize the goal of managing the effects of RSMV without implying that the diseases themselves can be reduced.

Response: Rephrased in the text as per suggestion.

Comments 10: 'design effective strategy' should be revised to 'design effective strategies' for consistency in number.

Response: Corrected in the text. Thank you.

Comments 11: I find this sentence somewhat unclear. The phrase 'major sign of RSMV may still be relatively unidentified' could be rephrased for clarity. It might be helpful to specify what is meant by 'major sign' and to clarify whether you mean that the sign is not well-studied or if it is simply not recognized..'

Response: we have rephrased the sentence for easy understanding as “Since the RSMV infection is not well-studied yet, many of the signs and symptoms of this infection may still be unidentified”.

Comments 12: I noticed that the mention of 'geographical distribution data' in the context of this study, which is focused on China, seems a bit out of place. It may be more effective to specify that the geographical distribution pertains specifically to regions within China rather than suggesting a broader scope..

Response: We agreed the rephrasing and thank you. It is “Considering this situation, our review highlighted the latest innovations in RSMV and demonstrated the geographical distribution and occurrence of infection, specifically to regions within China, from the fundamental information of field surveys.”.

Comments 13: I appreciate the insights provided in the manuscript. However, I think it would be beneficial to elaborate on how consumers specifically might benefit from the data and suggestions presented. Currently, the link between the research findings and consumer advantages is not clearly articulated. Perhaps providing examples of how improved disease control policies can lead to better rice quality and availability for consumers would enhance this section.'

Response: We agreed with the suggestions and thank you. Included as “The implementation of improved disease control policies can help farmers to minimize losses in crop yields and grain quality, as well as enhance food security. This leads to higher crop yields with safer and more nutritious grains, thereby increasing consumer satisfaction and ensuring a steady supply of grains at reduced price”.

Comments 14: While the review highlights important developments in the investigation of RSMV, the language used may come across as overly assertive. Phrases like 'solid foundation for a comprehensive way of speculative studies' might benefit from more neutral wording to convey the significance of the findings without sounding boastful. Consider rephrasing to emphasize the contribution of the research in a more modest tone.

Response: With thanks, we agreed this change. It makes clearer for understanding. It is “This review defined the most recent developments in the prospective investigation guidelines for RSMV and further understanding of the pathogenesis of this virus. This provides a solid foundation for comprehensive study on RSMV.”.

Comments 15: I appreciate the discussion on utilizing high-throughput omics technologies for advancing genetic engineering in disease suppression. However, I personally have reservations about consuming genetically engineered rice. It might be beneficial to acknowledge the varied perspectives on GE foods in the review, as this could provide a more balanced view of the topic and address potential concerns some consumers may have.

Response: We have addressed in the text. However, we would intend deletion if not suitable anyway. Thank you. Now it is like “High-throughput omics technologies, like transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, can be employed to identify key regulatory pathways targeting for genetic engineering for disease suppression and controlling of host-pathogen interaction. However, it is acknowledgeable that, there are varied perspectives on the consumption of genetically engineered foods worldwide”.

Comments 16: The mention of using big data and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to identify RSMV resistance is intriguing; however, the specific mechanisms through which AI contributes to this process are not clear. It would be helpful to elaborate on how AI can aid in the identification of resistance traits, facilitate molecular breeding, and predict disease outbreaks. Providing examples or clarifying the methods involved could enhance the understanding of this application.

Response: Thank you for the very necessary suggestion. We have improved our MS accordingly. It is like “AI can analyze genomic data at large scale to detect markers, genomic sequences or gene clusters that contribute to virus resistance in crops and can help breeders pinpoint key resistance genes by comparing genetic profile of resistant and susceptible crops. Also, AI technique, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), can process leaf image to detect sign of infection at early stage”.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment: Minor editing of English language required

Response: Thank you very much for comment on the English of our article. We have further extensively revised the whole manuscript for substantial improvement. However, if further editing is necessary, we are very willing having comments regarding this.

Additional insertion

In this year, very recently, severe infection and damage to rice field has been occurred by planthopper in South Korea. It is expected that; these outbreaks may be due to RSMV infection by the planthopper. Therefore, we have included some discussion of this situation in the text.

“Global warming is facilitating the movement and spread of rice planthoppers in Northeast Asia, including China, South Korea, and Japan. As of September 2024, significant damage to rice cultivation from planthoppers has been reported in the southern regions of the Korean Peninsula, including Chungcheongnam-do, Jeollanam-do, and Gyeongsangnam-do, affecting approximately 26,000 hectares of rice field (Korea Rural Development Administration) [1]. In particular, the year 2024 has seen a sustained high temperature in the Korean Peninsula until mid-September, leading to a rapid increase in rice planthopper populations and a corresponding rise in damage to rice crops during the harvesting period. Damage from rice planthoppers has also occurred in Southern Japan, including Kyushu (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan).

Every year, rice planthoppers from Southeastern China and Southeast Asia migrate to the Korean Peninsula and Southern Japan across the East China Sea due to westerly winds and typhoon. Generally, the planthoppers that move into these regions do not survive the harsh winter and die off. However, due to recent global warming, prolonged high temperatures and monsoon seasons have been observed in these regions, resulting in rice planthopper spreading and damage in certain areas of Northeast Asia. Therefore, it is of high chance that the increase in rice planthopper damage in the southern regions of the Korean Peninsula and Southern Japan will lead to the spread of RSMV in these areas”.

Round-2

Response to Reviewer-2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for reviewing the revised version of this manuscript. I am grateful for your positive impression on our manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment: MS is fine now, the corrections are addressed properly

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time for reviewing the revise version of the manuscript. 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected.

Response 1: Thank you very much for comment on the English of our article.