Intake of Pyriproxyfen Through Contaminated Food by the Predator Ceraeochrysa claveri Navás, 1911 (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): Evaluation of Long-Term Effects on Testes via Transcriptome Analysis^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find my comments and questions in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for your suggestions and contributions to our paper. The answers to your comments and questions are in the attached document.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

The current phrasing may cause confusion, as predators were exposed to pyriproxyfen indirectly through consumption of treated prey rather than via direct insecticide contact. We suggest modifying the title to explicitly reflect this trophic-level exposure mechanism. Please pay attention to“Exposure”, it may be inapposite.

 

Introduction

1. Lack of transitional sentences between paragraph 1 and 2, paragraph 4 and 5.
2. The use of pyriproxyfen should be added in the introduction section. Many transcriptome researches were conducted related to pyriproxyfen treatment in insects. Please add some references in this aspect.

 

Materials and Methods

1. In 2.3, why the testis of 10-day-old male adults was selected as the sampling time point?
2. The authors should clearly indicate that why 50 mg/L and 100 mg/L were selected in this study, do they have some practical significance in controlling sugarcane bore.
3. L186 “2.6 Four genes were randomly selected for validation of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) using RT-qPCR”. Why not to chose some genes related key pathways?

Results

1. Please, improve the clarity of Figure 1 in the manuscript.

 

Discussion

1. Comparative analysis requires further enhancement: While this study primarily focused on the functional characterization of differentially expressed genes (DEGs), expanding cross-species comparisons with existing research on non-target insect responses to pyriproxyfen or other insecticides (such as comparisons across species, insecticide types, or modes of action) would better delineate both the uniqueness and biological universality of the current findings. We recommend incorporating such cross-species comparative analyses in the Discussion section to strengthen the ecological relevance of this work.
2. Molecular mechanism elucidation requires deeper exploration: While functional inferences have been proposed for some differentially expressed genes (DEGs), the systemic molecular mechanisms underlying pyriproxyfen's disruption of reproductive-survival balance via testicular gene expression regulation remain incompletely resolved. To advance mechanistic clarity, we recommend integrating multi-omics datasets (e.g., proteomics, metabolomics) in future studies to map interconnected signaling pathways and reconstruct comprehensive regulatory networks governing this process.
3. Study limitations should be explicitly addressed: We recommend expanding the Discussion to acknowledge potential discrepancies between experimental conditions and field applications, including but not limited to (1) controlled laboratory environments versus dynamic field ecosystems (e.g., temperature/humidity fluctuations, predator-prey interactions) and (2) simplified dietary exposure protocols versus multidimensional field exposure routes (e.g., cuticular contact, spiracular inhalation). Such clarifications would enable readers to more objectively evaluate the ecological implications of the findings while highlighting opportunities for translational validation.

References

1. Please, check the correctness of the reference format, e.g., Line 393.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for your suggestions and contributions to our paper. The answers to your comments and questions are in the attached document.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf