Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if available).
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorJie ShenWashington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States of America
- Senior EditorClaude DesplanNew York University, New York, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this study, a chromosome-level genome of the rose-grain aphid M. dirhodum was assembled with high quality, and A-to-I RNA-editing sites were systematically identified. The authors then demonstrated that: 1) Wing dimorphism induced by crowding in M. dirhodum is regulated by 20E (ecdysone signaling pathway); 2) an A-to-I RNA editing prevents the binding of miR-3036-5p to CYP18A1 (the enzyme required for 20E degradation), thus elevating CYP18A1 expression, decreasing 20E titer, and finally regulating the wing dimorphism of offspring.
Strengths:
The authors present both genome and A-to-I RNA editing data. An interesting finding is that a A-to-I RNA editing site in CYP18A1 ruin the miRNA binding site of miR-3036-5p. And loss of miR-3036-5p regulation lead to less 20E and winged offspring.
Weaknesses:
How crowding represses the miR-3036-5p is still unclear.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Environmental influences on development are ubiquitous, affecting many phenotypes in organisms. However molecular genetic and cellular mechanisms transducing environmental signals are still only barely understood. This study examines part of one such intracellular mechanism in a polyphenic (or dimorphic) aphid.
Strengths:
While other published reports have linked phenotypic plasticity to RNA editing before, this study reports such an interaction in insects. The study uses a wide array of molecular tools to identify connections upstream and downstream of the RNA editing to elucidate the regulatory mechanism, which is illuminating.
Weaknesses:
While this system is intriguing, this report does not foster confidence in its conclusions. Many of the analyses seem based on very small sample sizes. It is itself problematic that sample sizes are not obvious in most figures, although based on Methods section covering RNAseq, they seem to be either 3, 6 or 9, depending on whether stages were pooled, but that point is not made clear. With such small sample sizes, statistical tests of any kind are unreliable. Besides the ambiguity on sample sizes, it's unclear what error bars or whiskers show in plots throughout this study. When sample sizes are small estimates of variance are not reliable. Student's t-test is not appropriate for comparisons with such small sample sizes. Presently, it is not possible to replicate the tests shown in Figures 3, 4 and 6. (Besides the HT-seq reads, other data should also be made publicly available, following the journal's recommendations.) Regardless, effect sizes in some comparisons (Fig 3J, 4A-C, 6E,H) are clearly not large, making confidence in conclusions low. The authors should be cautious about over-interpreting these data.
