Assessment of Suitable Reference Genes for qRT-PCR Normalization in Eocanthecona furcellata (Wolff)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Recommend - Accept in present form

The authors present a comprehensive investigation of housekeeping genes for qRT-PCR for Wolff. The authors in the manuscript investigated nine commonly used housekeeping genes using five different methods using insects from different developmental stages, their results will be helpful for other molecular studies conducted in  E. furcellata. 

English usage and syntax is of an excellent standard providing clarity and conveyance of important information on standardizing qRT-PCR for E. furcellata. 

Author Response

English usage and syntax is of an excellent standard providing clarity and conveyance of important information on standardizing qRT-PCR for E. furcellata. 

Thank you for your advice, we appreciate your positive comments. We have corrected the English language and style based on the suggestions. We tired our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These change will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The importance of using proper houskeeping genes in PCR studies, such as RNAi gene knock down, is well accepted. Despite this, many scientific works suffer from an inappropriate use of housekeeping genes. Authors here studied suitable reference genes for qRT-PCR normalization in an important predatory natural enemy insect. This is of high practical relevance when using the predator in agricultural biocontrol experiments.

The experiments are carefully done, the results well described and the manuscript is well written except the References. They have to be carefully checked for proper and uniform style of writing (names of species; use of lowercase and uppercase letters etc.).

Minors:

- line 83: cotton balls were placed

- line 367: at other sites authors talk about 5 algorithms used

Author Response

1 The experiments are carefully done, the results well described and the manuscript is well written except the References. They have to be carefully checked for proper and uniform style of writing (names of species; use of lowercase and uppercase letters etc.).

Thank you for your affirmation of the content and description of our experiments. We have revised the References section, and we have standardized the writing style to use the correct species names. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

2 line 83: cotton balls were placed

Thanks for your correction, We have changed "cotton balls was placed" to "cotton balls were placed" . (Line 83)

3 line 367: at other sites authors talk about 5 algorithms used

Thanks for your correction, we have changed the 4 algorithms to 5 algorithms and modified the logical relationships here. (Line 374-383)