Wolbachia’s Deleterious Impact on Aedes aegypti Egg Development: The Potential Role of Nutritional Parasitism
, Johanna E. Fraser 1,2, Scott A. Ritchie 3,4,5, D. Albert Joubert 3, Cameron P. Simmons 1,3,6 and Heather A. Flores 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Wolbachia’s Deleterious Impact on Aedes aegypti egg development: the potential role of nutritional parasitism” by Allman et al. The review article explored the role of Wolbachia in the management of dengue through its deployment against Aedes aegypti. This review concentrates on the adverse impacts on mosquito eggs (especially egg development and longevity) due to Wolbachia infection.
This is a detailed and comprehensive review of the topic and I do not have any major comments regarding the content or references cited.
Minor comments
Line 108. Please check journal requirements but scientific names are typically not italicised in subheadings where format includes italicised text (see other subheadings throughout manuscript too)
Line 229. Change “Aedes Aegypti” to “Aedes aegypti”
Line 249. Authors should ensure that the layout of manuscript includes both the figure and figure legend on the same page
Line359. Throughout the references listed, there is some inconsistency in the capitalisation of article titles, authors may wish to review accordingly. There are a small number of formatting errors, see references 65, 72, and 78.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript 'Wolbachia's deleterious impact on Aedes aegypti egg development: the potential role of nutritional parasitism' by Allman et al is a specific review of the effect of Wolbachia infection on egg development in Ae aegypti. The use of Wolbachia to control mosquito-borne virus infections has been a popular strategy since the discovery that their transinfection into Ae aegypti can reduce virus transmission.
Although it is well known that endosymbionts such as Wolbachia exert effects on their hosts, particularly nutritional depletion, to my knowledge there is no current review on the topic. This review is well written and sufficiently organized with a good selection of relevant references. It can be accepted for publication after some modifications as follows:
General Comments:
et al should be in italics throughout
Specific comments:
Line 63- 40% insect species is an under estimation. For example see PMID: 18312577
Line 89- This statement implies that infected mosquitoes are released during the egg stage. This should be clarified.
Line 96-107- I suggest this section could be added to and more explanation provided. E.g difference between wMelPop and wMelPop-CLA. It would also be interesting for the authors to comment on comparisons between nutritional impacts on Ae aegypti and Ae albopictus and how this influences virus transmission in these vectors.
Line 102- arboviruses or all viruses?
Line 158- 'between Wolbachia and [it's] host. [Add word]
Line 164- 'sequenceD the genomes' (past tense)
Section 5.2.2- as it is well known that lipids play an important role in flavivirus replication it would be of interest for the authors to comment on how this may impact their replication under these conditions. Would there be any impacts on virus control should the diet of the Wolbachia- infected vectors be adjusted
Figure 1a- the label for the fat body is misleading as it suggests that it is in 2 distinct locations within the abdomen. This should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
