An aphid-resistant plant metabolite as a candidate aphicide: Insight into the bioactivity and action mode of betulin against aphids

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Wang, Junxiu et al. investigated the underlying molecular mechanisms of the insecticidal activity of betulin against the peach aphid, Myzus persicae. There are two important findings described in this manuscript: (a) betulin inhibits the gene expression of GABA receptor in the aphid, and (b) betulin binds to the GABA receptor protein, acting as an inhibitor. The first finding is supported by RNA-Seq and RNAi, and the second one is convinced with MST and electrophysiological assays. Further investigations on the betulin binding site on the receptor protein provided a fundamental discovery that T228 is the key amino acid residue for its affinity, thereby acting as an inhibitor, backed up by site-directed mutagenesis of the heterologously-expressed receptor in E. coli and by CRISPR-genome editing in Drosophila.

Although the manuscript does have strengths in principle, the weaknesses do exist: the manuscript would benefit from more comprehensive analyses to fully support its key claims in the manuscript. In particular:

(1) The Western blotting results in Figure 5A & B appear to support the claim that betulin inhibits GABR gene expression (L26), as a decrease in target protein levels is often indicative of suppressed gene expression. The result description for Figure 5A & B is found in L312-L316, within Section 3.6 ("Responses of MpGABR to betulin"), where MST and voltage-clamp assays are also presented. It seems the observed decrease in MpGABR protein content is due to gene downregulation, rather than a direct receptor protein-betulin interaction. However, this interpretation lacks discussion or analysis in either the corresponding results section or the Discussion. In contrast, Figures 5C-F are specifically designed to illustrate protein-betulin interactions. Presenting Figure 5A & B alongside these panels might lead to confusion, as they support distinct claims (gene expression vs. protein binding/inhibition). Therefore, I recommend moving Figure 5A & B either to the end of Figure 3 or to a separate figure altogether to improve clarity and logical flow. A minor point in the Western blotting experiment is that although GAPDH was used as a reference protein, there is no explanation in the corresponding M&M section.

(2) The description of the electrophysiological recording experiment is unclear regarding the use of GABA. I didn't realize that GABA, the true ligand of the GABA receptor, was used in this inhibition experiment until I reached the Results section (L321), which states, "In the presence of only GABA, a fast inward current was generated." Crucially, no details are provided on the experiment itself, including how GABA was applied (e.g., concentration, duration, whether GABA was treated, followed by betulin, or vice versa). This information is essential for reproducibility. Please ensure these details are thoroughly described in the corresponding M&M section.

(3) The phylogenetic analysis, particularly concerning Figures 4 and 6B, needs significant attention for clarity and representativeness. First, your claim that MpGABR is only closely related to CAI6365831.1 (L305-L310) is inconsistent with the provided phylogenetic tree, which shows MpGABR as equally close to Metopolophium dirhodum (XP_060864885.1) and Acyrthosiphon pisum (XP_008183008.2). Therefore, singling out only Macrosiphum euphorbiae (CAI6365831.1) is not supported by the data. Second, the representation of various insect orders is insufficient. All 11 sequences in the Hemiptera category (in both Figure 4 and Figure 6B) are exclusively from the Aphididae family. This small subset cannot represent the highly diverse Order Hemiptera. Consequently, statements like "only THR228 was conserved in Hemiptera" (L338), "The results of the sequence alignment revealed that only THR228 was conserved in Hemiptera" (L430), or "THR228... is highly conserved in Hemiptera" (L486) are not adequately supported. Third, similar concerns apply to the Diptera order, which includes 10 Drosophila and 2 mosquito samples (not diverse or representative enough), and likely to other orders as well. Thereby, the Figure 6B alignment should be revised accordingly to reflect a more accurate representation or to clarify the scope of the analysis. Fourth, there's a discrepancy in the phylogenetic method used: the M&M section (L156) states that MEGA7, ClustalW, and the neighbor-joining method were used, while the Figure 4 caption mentions that MEGA X, MUSCLE, and the Maximum likelihood method were employed. This inconsistency needs to be clarified and made consistent throughout the manuscript. Fifth, I have significant concerns about the phylogenetic tree itself (Figure 4). A small glitch was observed at the Danaus plexippus node, which raises suspicion regarding potential manipulation after tree construction. More critically, the tree, especially within Coleoptera, does not appear to be clearly resolved. I am highly concerned about whether all included sequences are true GABR orthologs or if the dataset includes partial or related sequences that could distort the phylogeny. Finally, for Figure 6B, both protein (XP_) and nucleotide (XM_) sequences were mix used. I recommend using the protein sequences instead of nucleotide sequences in this figure panel, as protein sequences are more directly informative.

(4) The Discussion section requires significant revision to provide a more insightful and interpretative analysis of the results. Currently, much of the section primarily restates findings rather than offering deeper discussion. For instance, L409-L419 restate the results, followed by the short sentence "Collectively, these results suggest that betulin may have insecticidal effects on aphids by inhibiting MpGABR expression". It could be further expanded to make it beneficial to elaborate on proposed mechanisms by which gene expression might be suppressed, including any potential transcription factors involved. In contrast, while L422-L442 also initially summarize results, the subsequent paragraph (L445-L472) effectively discusses the potential mechanisms of inhibitory action and how mortality is triggered, which is a good model for other parts of the section. However, all the discussion ends up with a short statement, "implying that betulin acts as a CA of MpGABR" (L472), which appears to be a leap. The inference that betulin acts as a competitive antagonist (CA) is solely based on the location of its extracellular binding site, which does not exactly overlap with the GABA binding site. It needs stronger justification or actually requires further experimental validation. The authors should consider rephrasing this statement to acknowledge the need for additional studies to definitively confirm this mechanism of action.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This important study shows that betulin from wild peach trees disrupts neural signaling in aphids by targeting a conserved site in the insect GABA receptor. The authors present a nicely integrated set of molecular, physiological, and genetic experiments to establish the compound's species-specific mode of action. While the mechanistic evidence is solid, the manuscript would benefit from a broader discussion of evolutionary conservation and potential off-target ecological effects.

Strengths:

The main strengths of the study lie in its mechanistic clarity and experimental rigor. The identification of a betulin-binding single threonine residue was supported by (1) site-directed mutagenesis and (2) functional assays. These experiments strongly support the specificity of action. Furthermore, the use of comparative analyses between aphids and fruit flies demonstrates an important effort to explore species specificity, and the integration of quantitative data further enhances the robustness of the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

There are several important limitations that need to be addressed. The manuscript does not explore whether the observed sensitivity to betulin reflects a broadly conserved feature of GABA receptors across animal lineages or a more lineage-specific adaptation. This evolutionary context is crucial for understanding the broader significance of the findings.

In addition, while the compound's aphicidal effect is well established, the potential for off-target effects in non-target organisms - especially vertebrates - remains unaddressed, despite prior evidence that betulin interacts with mammalian GABAa receptors. There is little discussion on the ecological or environmental safety of exogenous betulin application, such as persistence, degradation, or exposure risks.