Perception and Longevity Control in Invertebrate Model Organisms—A Mini-Review of Recent Advances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Perception and Longevity Control in Invertebrate Model Organisms – A Mini-Review of Recent Advances" explores how sensory perception influences aging and longevity, focusing on invertebrate model organisms (Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans). The paper discusses findings on sensory cues—dietary, social, stress-related, and light-based—and their effects on lifespan through neural and physiological pathways. The review emphasizes that sensory perception not only reflects environmental conditions but also actively modulates life history trade-offs, including the balance between reproduction and somatic maintenance. The authors highlight the integration of sensory inputs with neuronal circuits, which ultimately affect aging processes. The paper debates significant progress that has been made in understanding sensory perception's role in aging, many mechanisms remain unclear and expected future directions that can be of high importance in understanding relative phenomena. Their focus on the invertebrates is based on the fact that they have simpler systems, ease of handling and genetic traceability with ease to experiment. This work calls for further research into neuronal circuits and evolutionary implications that might be direct applicable to mammalian systems with practical applications.

 

The authors have drafted comprehensive literary material in this review regarding the topic that aligns with the interest of general research community and for the researchers in neurobiology and aging in particular. Although there can be some more additions e.g. discussing mechanisms showing interactions of specific neurons (serotonergic and dopaminergic) and perception in detail but that would most possibly not possible in scope of this mini review. The manuscript should be published with the improvement of these minor comments.

 

 

Minor Comments:

1.    Some of the sections (like dietary choice and signaling) seem to rely on the subset of studies/references from the authors that can be broadened with other scientific literature as well. Also, the authors have tried to imply some conclusions based on their unpublished works (Reference 23 – line 379).

 

2.    The translational implications (in humans) of the related research can be improved e.g. the section on meal replacements choices/products can be enhanced. Also other sections can be discussed with some more detail like light perception and social clues needs more evidence otherwise authors should mention the limitations in the literature.

Author Response

Please see our response letter attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of aging and longevity is relevant at the present time. The review «Perception and Longevity Control in Invertebrate Model Organisms» provides a modern understanding of the influence of sensory signals on life expectancy. Food, social signals, stress and light were considered. Since this is a mini-review, the information is presented briefly, logically and structured. However, in some cases, a more extensive analysis would be desirable. For example, the chapter «Light» includes only one paragraph. My recommendation for the future is to write a full review.

Author Response

Please see our response letter attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this review entitled ’Perception and Longevity Control in Invertebrate Model Organisms – A Mini-Review of Recent Advances’ the authors provide a nice overview of current knowledge on the topic obtained from studies on Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans.

Generally, I think that the review is structured in a logical way. However, I suggest that a section pinpointing more directly open research questions that should be investigated next and how this can be done, is included. Apart from that my comments are minor and in my opinion the work deserves publication.

Line 40: Physiology and metabolism are broad terms, and metabolism is an integrated in physiology. Consider rephrasing.

Line 60: Insert space before ’In’. Also from here and onwards D. melanogaster is not written out but only ’Drosophila’ is written. If all studies that is referred to is with D. melanogaster I suggest that you write D. melanogaster. If other Drosophila species are investigated it should be stated which species it is.

Line 98: Unclear which research groups that are referred to. Please specify.

Line 119 and elsewhere: Write ’per see’ in italics

References: A few inconsistencies in the reference list; Ref 1: editors are listed which I expect should be done for a journal paper, Ref 4: here (and elsewhere) initial letters in title words are in capital – this is not used elsewhere, species names in Latin are sometimes not in italics, Ref. 23: hard to dick up this information – can a link be provided?, Ref. 50 – not correct journal abbreviation, Ref. 55: Title written with all capital letters,

Author Response

Please see our response letter attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf