Review Reports
- Jun Hu1,2,†,
- He Cui3,† and
- Mingsheng Hong2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Satish Kumar Sain Reviewer 3: Nabil Nemer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Transgenic or gene edited? Kindly clarify.
Author Response
- Transgenic or gene edited? Kindly clarify.
Response: We used a transgenic approach to integrate RNA interference-related elements into the Metarhizium anisopliae genome, so we used “transgenic”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The MS and the paper is of practical use for further R&D
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- delete “that had been autoclated” in line 52
Response: It was deleted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The contents ar eimportant and intresting. It is very smooth to read and the conlusions are supported by the methodology and the results.
though the subject is now knew; but the combination of the entomopathogenic fungus and RNAi technology was efficient and better control was demonstrated.
My minor comments mainly covers the introduction which may be extended considering that othr studies are availabale in literature. Another thing that you need to address is the last sentence of the introduction where you have unluded the results of your research. Better to state the objectives of your study only not your findings (Lines 45-47).
please address the following typing mistakes:
line 75 : were instead of was
line88: amplify instead of amply
line 174: i think you mean sap sucking inscets and not stable sucking inscets
Author Response
The contents ar eimportant and intresting. It is very smooth to read and the conlusions are supported by the methodology and the results. though the subject is now knew; but the combination of the entomopathogenic fungus and RNAi technology was efficient and better control was demonstrated.
1. My minor comments mainly covers the introduction which may be extended considering that othr studies are availabale in literature. Another thing that you need to address is the last sentence of the introduction where you have unluded the results of your research. Better to state the objectives of your study only not your findings (Lines 45-47).
Response: (1) We added 2 sentences in paragraph two of the introduction and 1 reference cited. (2) In the last sentence of the introduction, we modified the sentence as “In this study, we expressed the dsRNA of NlCHSA in M. anisopliae to improve its insecticidal virulence to N. lugens’.
- line 75 : were instead of was
Response: It was done.
- line88: amplify instead of amply
Response: It was done.
- Line 174: i think you mean sap sucking inscets and not stable sucking inscets
Response: We changed the word “stable-sucking pests” to “sap-sucking pests”.
In addition, we carefully edited our manuscript again.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Ok