Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 22;18(5):e0285666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285666

Inoculation and colonization of the entomopathogenic fungi, Isaria javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum, in tomato plants, and their effect on seedling growth, mortality and adult emergence of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)

Ibrahim Sani 1,2, Syari Jamian 1,3,*, Norsazilawati Saad 1, Sumaiyah Abdullah 1, Erneeza Mohd Hata 4, Johari Jalinas 5, Siti Izera Ismail 1,3,*
Editor: Allah Bakhsh6
PMCID: PMC10202273  PMID: 37216342

Abstract

Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are natural enemies which affect insect population and have long been recognized as biological control agents against many insect pests. Some isolates have also been established as endophytes, benefiting their host plants without causing any symptoms or negative effects. Here we demonstrated two entomopathogenic fungal species, Isariajavanica (Frieder. & Bally) Samson & Hywel-jone 2005 and Purpureocillium lilacinum (Thom) Luangsa-ard, Hou-braken, Hywel-Jones & Samson (2011) as endophytes in tomato plants by using the seed inoculation method and examined their effect on plant growth, B. tabaci mortality, and adult emergence. Our study indicated that tomato seeds treated with a fungal suspension of I. javanica and P. lilacinum enabled their recovery from plant tissues (root, stem and leaf) up to 60 days after inoculation (DAI). Both endophytic isolates also caused significant mortality of adult B. tabaci on seedlings inoculated with, I. javanica (51.92±4.78%), and P. lilacinum (45.32±0.20%) compared to the control treatment (19.29±2.35). Adult emergence rates were significantly high in the control treatments (57.50±2.66%) compared to I. javanica (15.00±1.47%) and P. lilacinum (28.75±4.78%) treatments. This study provides evidence that endophytic isolates of I. javanica and P. lilacinum have a biocontrol potentials for used against whiteflies and could also explored as plant growth promoters.

Introduction

Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are natural enemies of the insect populations and are often regarded as effective biological control agents in integrated pest management (IPM) programs [1, 2]. Insect pests are normally controlled with EPF by either inundative or inoculative application of fungal propagules [3]. Several EPF have been commercialized for sap-sucking insect pest control [4]. In addition to direct applications, EPF have been discovered to colonize plants and grow endophytically, causing significant mortality of insect pests infesting plants, including B. tabaci on tomato plants [5].

In many different plants, numerous genera of EPF have been isolated as endophytes. Some of them were identified as endophytes that occur naturally while others have been introduced into the plants artificially using different methods of inoculation [6]. Ascomycete fungi such as Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae are typical examples of fungal endophytes that naturally colonize plants and have also been artificially introduced into a wide variety of plants to reduce damage caused by insect pests including leaf-mining insects, and sap-sucking pests [4, 710]. For example, the endophytic colonization of tomato by B. bassiana can significantly suppress Tuta obsoluta populations causing approximately 90% mortality [7, 11].

In recent years, EPF species from the genera Isaria and Purpureocillium have been reported to artificially colonized plant tissues, promoting plant growth and mortality of insect pests [12, 13]. Fungal-plant interactions have been demonstrated to last for several months after inoculation, protecting the plants against insect attacks [11, 14]. Depending on the inoculation techniques, endophytes vary in their ability to colonize various plant tissues and survive over a plant growth cycle [10]. Inoculation techniques include seed treatment, root dipping, stem injection soil drenching, and foliar application [15]. A range of these techniques has been studied for the endophytic colonization of tomato plants and efficiently promoting seedlings’ growth and protecting them from attack by several insect pests.

In Malaysia where this study was conducted, little or no information can be found on the effects of EPF endophytes on the host plants and insect herbivores. However, there are some reports of endophytic colonization of some plants by other fungal isolates [16, 17], but no reports are yet available on the EPF establishment as an endophyte in tomatoes and any other plants.

The use of EPF as endophytes in plants could reduce damage caused by insect pests especially the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, which has recently become one of the major threats to tomato production in Malaysia [18, 19]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the endophytic capability in tomato plants by some recently isolated native strains of EPF in Malaysia and their influence on plant growth, mortality, and adult emergence of B. tabaci that could become part of IPM.

Materials and methods

Plants, insects, and endophytic fungal isolates

Tomato seeds (MT1 variety) used in this study were obtained from the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI). The stock culture of whiteflies that colonized tomato plants in the greenhouse was collected, reared, and maintained in a greenhouse under 25–30°C and 60–80% RH with a photoperiod of 12L:12D h light: dark, at the Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). B. tabaci was identified by using mitochondrial COI (mt COI) sequencing with the primers (C1-J-2195 and L2-N-3014) as described by Frohlich et al. [20]. The sequencing data was registered and assigned the accession number OM638559 (GenBank). B. tabaci populations were reared on tomato plants for over 10 generations in a rearing cage at the Ladang 15, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia(UPM) at (25–30°C and 60–80% RH with a photoperiod of 12L:12D h. Tomato plants were checked daily, and the damaged seedlings were replaced with new seedlings. The two fungal isolates, I. javanica (Cjc-03) and P. lilacinum (TS-01) used in this study were found naturally infesting B. tabaci on chili and tomato plants and their virulence was evaluated against nymphs and adult B. tabaci under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. The isolates were identified by morphological characterization and molecular identification (ITS region amplification).

The sequence data of the 2 isolates have been deposited in the NCBI GenBank database and the details of the isolates can be seen in S1 Table.

Preparation of conidial suspensions

The isolates were sub-cultured on potato dextrose agar medium (PDA) medium supplemented with 50mg/ml each of penicillin, streptomycin, and tetracycline. Conidia were harvested from 14 days old cultures grown on PDA slants by flooding 0.01% of tween 80 on sporulated cultures and scrapped using a sterile spatula. Following that, the collected conidia were suspended in a 50 mL plastic tube, vortexed for 2 minutes, and filtered through four layers of muslin cloth to remove debris and create a homogeneous stock suspension. Conidia viability was determined by inoculating 150μl of each fungal isolate suspension on to the surface of fresh PDA plates [21]. Before incubation, a sterile microscope coverslip was placed on top of the agar on each plate. At 18–20 hours after incubation, the viability assessment was conducted using a light microscope at 400X magnifications by counting the number of germinated conidia out of 100 conidia in one randomly selected area. When the diameter of the conidium’s germ tubes exceeded half of the diameter of the conidium, the conidia were considered viable [10]. For each isolate, an average of three replicate counts was used.

Tomato seed inoculation

Aseed immersion method was performed in this experiment by following the method described by Allegrucci et al. [7]. Seeds were surface sterilized using 70% ethanol for 5 minutes and rinsed 5 times with sterile distilled water. The treated seeds were placed on sterile tissue filter papers to dry for 30 minutes in a laminar flow before being inoculated and planted [7, 11, 22]. About 10 g of surface-sterilized seeds were subdivided into three equal portions, out of which two portions were individually soaked in a tube containing 10 ml of a conidial suspension with1x108 conidia/ ml prepared from each of the two isolates (Cjc-03 and TS-01). The third portion was soaked in sterile distilled water +0.01% Tween 80 solution that served as a control treatment. At 24 hours after inoculation, the seeds were dried on sterile tissue paper in a laminar flow cabinet for 30 min, sown in multipots trays at a depth of 2 cm, containing approximately 20g of sterile peat moss planting media (previously autoclaved at 121°C for 30 minutes). The trays were maintained in the greenhouse at 25–30° C and 60–80%RH. During the experiments, plants were watered as needed and no fertilizer was used.

Assessment of endophytic colonization in inoculated tomato seedlings

Endophytic colonization was examined using two methods: (i) surface sterilization and PDA media plating, and (ii) live imaging using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM). For the first method, at each observation point, 5 seedlings were randomly selected per treatment for endophytic colonization assessment using a destructive sampling method [23]. The seedlings were then transported to the laboratory, washed, separated into leaves, stems, and roots, and trimmed into smaller pieces of about 1 cm2 with sterile stainless scissors. These parts were surface sterilized with 70% ethanol for 5 min, rinsed 5 times in sterile distilled water, and then placed on sterile tissue paper to dry in a laminar flow cabinet [22]. Five pieces of each leaf, stem, and root from each inoculated seedling were randomly taken and placed in a PDA plate, and each of the plates was labeled and replicated 3 times.

The Petri dishes containing the plant tissues were then incubated at 25±2 °C and inspected daily to assess for fungal growth. Plant pieces that exhibited fungal growth were recorded. A total of 60 plants and 180 plant pieces were examined and the presence or absence of fungal endophytes in leaves, stems, and roots was recorded after 15, 30, 45, and 60 DAI.

Re-isolated fungal colonies were morphologically identified by comparing the mycelia and growth pattern with the original culture and by observing the conidia and conidiophores from prepared slides using a light microscope.

The data were expressed as:

Colonizationfrequency=NumberofPlantPiecesColonizedTotalNumberofPlantpiecesx100

The second method, CLSM live imaging, was carried out as previously described by Nishi et al. [9]. A sterile stainless steel scissor was used to trim the sample of plant tissue to fit a glass microscope slide. CLSM was used to observed samples within 1–2 hours of collection. About fifteen different plant parts were observed from each treatment. Selected images wererepresentative of all images taken for a particular sample type.

Assessment of the effects of endophytic entomopathogenic fungi on tomato plant growth

The plant growth parameters: plant height, fresh weight, and dry weight were evaluated from the tomato plants used for endophytic colonization as described in the above section. The height of the tomato plants were measured with a ruler at 15, 30, 45, and 60 DAI. At 60 DAI, five seedlings from each of the treated and untreated control plants were harvested and taken to the laboratory for assessment of fresh and dry weight of the roots and aerial parts (stem and leaves). The fresh weight of the aerial parts and roots were weighed with an electronic balance and the same plant parts were placed inside a 20x20cm paper bag and placed in the oven at 60°C. After 3 days, the dried aerial and root parts were measured using the same electronic balance [24].

Effect of endophytic entomopathogenic fungi on B. tabaci mortality and adult emergence

The hypothesis tested in this experiment was that tomato seedlings inoculated as seeds with two EPF isolates, Cjc-03 and TS-01 have the ability to kill B. tabaci fed on colonized tomato plants. At 21 DAI, 6 seedlings from each treatment were transplanted in a 250ml pot (S1 Fig). A transparent plastic container (15 cm height X 8 cm width) with fine mesh at the top was placed inside the rim of pots covering the aerial part of the plant (S1 Fig). At 72 hours after transplanting, adult whiteflies were collected from a rearing cage with a manual aspirator and exposed to the aerial part of seedlings that had been grown from seeds inoculated with conidia of either I. javanica or P. lilacinum and untreated control seedlings. Afterward, 20–25 adult B. tabaci (≤ 5 days) were released in each confined pot with seedlings and adults were allowed to feed and oviposit for 7 days. The mortality of B. tabaci were recorded by counting the number of dead adults that dropped off the plantin each cage. At 7 days post B. tabaci release, all surviving adult insects were removed from the aerial parts of treated and control plants. Eggs laid on the leaflets were observed and seedlings were transferred to a new cage (20 cm height x10 cm width) for observing emergence of the first-generation adults (S1 Fig). The eggs and subsequent stages were monitored over a period of 35 days, while quantifying the number of first-generation adult B. tabaci.

Data analysis

The data of plant height were analyzed using factorial analysis of the variance, while the data for endophytic colonization, fresh and dry weight, population, and adult emergence of B. tabaci were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the package R statistical software Version 3.6.1, and significant differences between the means were compared with the LSD-Fischer test (p = 0.05).

Results

Assessment of endophytic colonization of inoculated tomato seedlings

The result of this study on endophytic colonization of tomatoes showed that both of the EPF isolates examined (Cjc-03 and TS-01) successfully developed as endophytes in these plants (re-isolated from leaves, stem, and root) (S2 Fig) following seed treatment. There was a decrease in colonization as assessed from the plant tissues plated on PDA medium after 30 days of inoculation, however, no P. lilacinum was re-isolated at 60 days after inoculation (Fig 1). No fungal isolates were isolated from the control plants.

Fig 1. Endophyte recovery in tomato inoculated with fungal isolates (Cjc-03 and TS-01).

Fig 1

Percentage colonization of different plant parts (A) leaves, (B) stems, and (C) roots of tomato plants inoculated with fungal isolates (Cjc-03 and TS-01) and evaluated at different time after inoculation (15, 30- and 60-days).

The colonization frequency observed for both two isolates showed higher colonization of the stems and leaves at 15 and 30 days of assessment respectively and showed no significant difference of colonization for each assessment period (15, 30 and 60 DAI), but significantly differed in the day interval (stem: F = 0.31 p = 0.60; F = 5.15 p = 0.029: leaves: F = 4.35, p = 0.06; F = 17.58, p = 0.0005) (Fig 1A and 1B). On the other hand, the highest root colonization by two fungal isolates was recorded at 30 days and significantly differed at each day of assessment (15, 30 and 60 DAI) (F = 5.21 p = 0.045; F = 14.15, p = 0.001) (Fig 1C). Endophytic colonization of both isolates (Cjc-03 and TS-01) in tomato plants were also examined using live imaging by CLSM. Spores, germinating conidia and appressorium formation were observed indicating that the conidia germinated in the tomato plant tissues (S3 Fig).

Effect of Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi on tomato seedling growth

The effects of inoculated EPF on the growth of tomato plants; height, number of leaves (leaflets), and fresh and dry weight are presented in Figs 2 and 3. Data analyzed showed a significant increase of these parameters for tomato plants inoculated with EPF as compared to the control plant. At 15, 30, and 60 DAI, the following mean plant heights ± SE were recorded respectively: Cjc-03; 3.56 cm, 13.76 cm, 45.04 cm: TS-01; 5.90 cm, 14.06 cm, 46.28 cm (Fig 2A). The factorial analysis of variance showed significant effects of the fungal endophytes, day after inoculation and their interaction on the height of tomato seedling (F =. 32.93, df = 2,32, p < 0.001; F = 820.91, df = 2,32, p < 0.001; F = 9.64, df = 4,32, p < 0.01 (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Mean height (±SE) and number of leaves (leaflets) of tomato seedlings.

Fig 2

(A): Length of tomato plants (shoot) measured at 15, 30, and 60 days after inoculations of tomato seeds with fungal suspension or control. (B): the number of leaves (leaflet) counted at 60 DAI of tomato seeds in fungal suspension or control. The different letters over the bars represent significant differences among the treatments according to Fisher’s LSD test (p< 0.05).

Fig 3. Mean (± SE) fresh weight (g) of tomato plants inoculated with 2 EPF isolates at 60 DAI.

Fig 3

(A) shoot weight (B), root weight. The different letters over the bars represent significant differences among the treatments according to Fisher’s LSD test (p < 0.05).

The leaves (leaflets) number of tomato seedlings showed a significantly higher mean number when seeds were inoculated with Cjc-03 and TS-01 isolates (74.67and 80.67) in comparison to control (47.67) (F = 27.26, df = 2,6, p< 0.001) (Fig 2B).

At 60 DAI, analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant increase in fresh and dry shoot and root biomass in seeds treated with Cjc-03 and TS-01 as compared to the control seedlings. Fresh shoots and roots showed significantly higher values for weight (14.14g; 14.21 and 16.74g; 16.81g) of tomato seedlings colonized by Cjc-03 and TS-01 respectively, in comparison to the control plant (7.31g; 7.51g) (shoot of seedling F = 9.67, df = 2,6, p = 0.013; seedlings roots F = 4.83, df = 2,6, p = 0.046) (Fig 3A and 3B).

The mean value of the dry weight of shoots and roots was significantly higher in fungal colonized plants than in the control plants. (Shoot dry weight: F = 9.1143, df = 2,6, p = 0.015; root dry weight: F = 3.91df = 3,6 p = 0.05) (Fig 4A and 4B).

Fig 4. Mean (± SE) dry weight (g) of tomato plants inoculated with 2 EPF isolates at 60 DAI.

Fig 4

(A) Shoots weight (B), root weight. The different letters over the bars represent significant differences among the treatments according to Fisher’s LSD test (p < 0.05).

Effects of endophytically-colonized tomato seedlings on the mortality, and adult emergence of B. tabaci

The endophytic fungal isolates, I. javanica (Cjc-03) and P. lilacinum (TS-01) significantly increased mortality rates of B. tabaci which had fed on colonized tomato seedlings at 7 days after exposure to the aerial parts when compared with those of the control treatment. However, seedlings treated with Cjc-03 caused the highest reduction (51.92±4.78%) of B. tabaci than those treated with TS-01 (45.32±0.20%) and there are no significant differences found among the plants treated with two isolates, but these result were significantly differed from those of untreated control seedlings (19.29±2.35), (F = 31.36, df = 2,9, p = < 0.01) (Fig 5A).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Effect of endophytic EPF on the mortality and adult emergence of B. tabaci (A): Mean percent mortality (SE ±) of adult B. tabaci exposed to tomato seedlings at 21 DAI. (B): Mean number (SE ±) of adult B. tabaci emergence on inoculated plants at 35 days after exposing adult B. tabaci on inoculated tomato seedlings. Treatments with the same letter were not significantly different according to Fisher’s LSD test at p = 0.05.

Endophytic fungi caused a reduction in adult B. tabaci emergence in the first generation. Both isolates caused a significant reduction in the number of adults emerging (35 days post-exposure). A significantly higher mean number of adults emerge in the control treatment (57.50±2.66) in comparison to the plants treated with Cjc-03 (15.00±1.47) and TS-0 (28.75±4.78) (F = 43.89, df = 2,9, p = < 0.01) (Fig 5B).

Discussion

The result of this research indicated that the two EPF isolates tested here have the capacity to colonize tomato plants endophytically which persisted in roots, stems, and leaves until the end of the trials (60 days). In addition, tomato seeds inoculated with I. javanica, and P. lilacinum isolates significantly promoted plant growth and reducedsurvival of B. tabaci adults which had fed on colonized tomato plants and also reduced adult emergence in comparison to control plants.

Previous research findings have reported the successful establishment of I. javanica, and P. lilacinum as endophytes for the control of insect pests in tomato plants and other economically important plants. Seed treatment by Isaria spp. has been successfully shown to be effective for endophytic colonization of pepper [25], eggplant [26], sorghum [27], and English oak [13]. Likewise, inoculation of P. lilacinum via seed treatment has been shown to colonize cotton [12, 28].

The percentage of colonization of each isolate was shown to be proportional to the day of assessment with the second period (30 DAI) observed to have the highest percent colonization and the third period (60 DAI) to have the lowest percentage. A similar trend was observed by Mantzoukas et al. [27] who recorded high percent colonization of sorghum leaves and stems by B. bassiana, M. robertsii, and Isaria fumosorosea at 30 DAI. Similarly, Sun et al. [26] recorded the lowest percentage colonization of plant tissues of eggplant (leaf, stem, and root) by C. fumosorosea at 60 DAI.

The current study found that tomato seed inoculated with an isolate of I. javanica or P. lilacinum promoted growth and increased plant biomass when compared with the uninoculated control plants. There are few reports of plant inoculations with EPF species of the genera Isaria and Purpureocillium promoting plant growth. For example, Sun et al. [26] reported that colonization of eggplant seedlings by C. fumosorosea increased plant height and other growth parameters including shoot length, root length, number of leaves, and weight of fresh shoot and root. However, P. lilacinum has been reported to increase the number of nodes and dry biomass of cotton plants [12]. Several factors have shown to enhance plant growth (shoot length, root length number of leaves, and weight of fresh shoot and root) some of them include, the ability to nurture nutrient uptake and to withstand different biotic and abiotic stress [26, 29].

The endophytic colonization of tomato by I. javanica and P. lilacinum caused significant mortality of whitefly and reduced adult emerge (35 days post-exposure) in comparison with the control plants. Although several studies demonstrated a significant reduction in the number of insect pests on different host plants when inoculated with EPF [4, 7, 8, 30], plant inoculations with fungal pathogens of the genera of Isaria and Purpureocellium have been rarely reported to cause negative effects on B. tabaci and other insect pests. For instance, Sun et al. [26] reported that the inoculation of C. fumosorosea isolates in eggplant by seed immersion resulted in a reduction of the B. tabaci population. The inoculations of B. bassiana in tomato plants by root drenching significantly reduced the number of eggs and nymphs of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in comparison to the uninoculated control plants [8]. Similarly, Lopez and Sword [12], reported a reduction in the population of Helicoverpa zea due to the endophytic action of B. bassiana and P. lilacinum in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).

Dead B. tabaci did not show any symptoms of mycosis. It has been previously reported that dead insects found in endophytically colonized plants show no symptoms of fungal infection [10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research provides the first report on the endophytic colonization of plants with EPF and their direct impact on promoting plant growth. Endophytic colonization was detected following seed immersion techniques after inoculating 1x108 fungal suspensions of I. javanica (Cjc-03) or P. lilacinum (TS-01). Both EPF endophytically colonized tomato seedlings and were recovered during 15, 30, and 60 DAI in the leaves, stems, and roots. Moreover, the plants treated with endophytes had increased height and biomass in comparison to non-treated seedlings. In addition, both endophytic isolates killed whiteflies and reduced B. tabaci adult emergence.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Bioassay cages used to evaluate the effect of endophytic EPF against B. tabaci.

(A) Cage used to examine the effect of endophytic EPF on B. tabaci Population (B) Cage used to examine Adult Emergence of B. tabaci.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Examples of endophytic EPF (Cjc-03 and TS-01) re-isolation from the tomato plant tissues.

(A) Leaf, (B) stem, and (C) root tissues following seed treatment with a fungal conidia suspensions.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Representative laser scanning confocal microscopy images of 30 days old tomato plant tissues colonized by endophytic EPF.

(A) Cjc-03 (I. javanica) (B) TS-01 (P. lilacinum) with the noticeable spores indicated that the spores are alive on the plant tissues; Germination of conidia and appressorium formation in the stem tissues of (C) Cjc-03 (I. javanica), (D) TS-01 (P. lilacinum).

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Fungal endophytes used in the study.

Species, accession number, origin, and EPF host species.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Razak Terhem and Arisa Azim for technical assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Grant no. 5540212; reference code FRGS/1/2019/WAB01/UPM/02/36). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jiang W, Peng Y, Ye J, Wen Y, Liu G, Xie J. Effects of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhiziumanisopliae on the mortality and immune response of Locusta migratoria. Insects. 2020;11(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sani I, Jamian S, Ismail SI, Saad N, Abdullah S, Hata EM, et al. Identification of entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Purpureocillium lilacinum from oil palm plantation soils in Universiti Putra Malaysia. Malays J Microbiol. 2022;18(1):105–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu F, Huang W, Wu K, Qiu Z, Huang Y, Ling E. Exploiting Innate Immunity for Biological Pest Control. In: Advances in Insect Physiology. Academic Press Inc.; 2017. pp. 199–230. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065280617300012 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.González-Mas N, Sánchez-Ortiz A, Valverde-García P, Quesada-Moraga E. Effects of endophytic entomopathogenic ascomycetes on the life-history traits of Aphis gossypii glover and its interactions with melon plants. Insects. 2019;10(6):1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wei QY, Li YY, Xu C, Wu YX, Zhang YR, Liu H. Endophytic colonization by Beauveria bassiana increases the resistance of tomatoes against Bemisia tabaci. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2020;14(3):289–300. doi: 10.1007/s11829-020-09746-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vega FE. Insect pathology and fungal endophytes. J Invertebr Pathol. 2008;98(3):277–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2008.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Allegrucci N, Velazquez MS, Russo ML, Perez E, Scorsetti AC. Endophytic colonisation of tomato by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana: The use of different inoculation techniques and their effects on the tomato leafminer Tutaabsoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J Plant Prot Res. 2017;57(4):331–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Barra-Bucarei L, González MG, Iglesias AF, Aguayo GS, Peñalosa MG, Vera PV. Beauveria bassiana multifunction as an endophyte: Growth promotion and biologic control of Trialeurodes vaporariorum, (westwood) (hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in tomato. Insects. 2020;11(9):1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nishi O, Sushida H, Higashi Y, Iida Y. Epiphytic and endophytic colonisation of tomato plants by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana strain GHA. Mycology. 2020;11:1–9. doi: 10.1080/21501203.2019.1707723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Muvea AM, Meyhöfer R, Subramanian S, Poehling HM, Ekesi S, Maniania NK. Colonization of onions by endophytic fungi and their impacts on the biology of Thripstabaci. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Silva ACL, Silva GA, Abib PHN, Carolino AT, Samuels RI. Endophytic colonization of tomato plants by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for controlling the South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta. CABI Agric Biosci. 2020;1(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s43170-020-00002-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lopez DC, Sword GA. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveriabassiana and Purpureocilliumlilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpazea). Biol Control. 2015;89:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.03.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vega FE. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: a review. Mycologia. 2018;110(1):4–30. doi: 10.1080/00275514.2017.1418578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Garrido-Jurado I., Resquín-Romero G., Amarilla S.P., Ríos-Moreno A., Carrasco L., Quesada-Moraga E. Transient endophytic colonization of melon plants by entomopathogenic fungi after foliar application for the control of Bemisiatabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J Pest Sci (2004). 2017;90:319–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mantzoukas S, Eliopoulos PA. Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi: A valuable biological control tool against plant pests. Appl Sci. 2020;10(1):1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hamzah TNT, Lee SY, Hidayat A, Terhem R, Faridah-Hanum I, Mohamed R. Diversity and characterization of endophytic fungi isolated from the tropical mangrove species, Rhizophoramucronata, and identification of potential antagonists against the soil-borne fungus, Fusariumsolani. Front Microbiol. 2018;9(01707):1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Siddiquee S, Yusuf UK, Zainudin NAIM. Morphological and molecular detection of Fusariumchlamydosporum from root endophytes of Dendrobiumcrumenatum. African J Biotechnol. 2010;9(26):4081–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Saad KA, Roff MNM, Hallett RH, Idris AB. Aphid-induced Defences in Chilli Affect Preferences of the Whitefly, Bemisiatabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Sci Rep. 2015;5(13697):1–9. doi: 10.1038/srep13697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sani I., Ismail S.I., Saad N., Abdullah S., Jalinas J., Jamian S. Insect Pests of Vegetables in Malaysia and their Management using Entomopathogenic Fungi. Serangga. 2020;25(3):126–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frohlich DR, Torres-Jerez I, Bedford ID, Markham PG, Brown JK. A phylogeographical analysis of the Bemisia tabaci species complex based on mitochondrial DNA markers. Mol Ecol. 1999;8(10):1683–91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10583831/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Oliveira DGP, Pauli G, Mascarin GM, Delalibera I. A protocol for determination of conidial viability of the fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae from commercial products. J Microbiol Methods. 2015;119:44–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tefera T, Vidal S. Effect of inoculation method and plant growth medium on endophytic colonization of sorghum by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveriabassiana. BioControl. 2009;54(5):663–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bamisile BS, Senyo Akutse K, Dash CK, Qasim M, Ramos Aguila LC, Ashraf HJ, et al. Effects of Seedling Age on Colonization Patterns of Citrus limon Plants by Endophytic Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae and Their Influence on Seedlings Growth. J Fungi. 2020;6(1):29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Canassa F, Tall S, Moral RA, Lara IAR d, Delalibera I, Meyling N V. Effects of bean seed treatment by the entomopathogenic fungi Metarhiziumrobertsii and Beauveriabassiana on plant growth, spider mite populations and behavior of predatory mites. Biol Control. 2019;132:199–208. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bocco R, Lee M, Kim D, Ahn S, Park JW, Lee SY, et al. Endophytic Isariajavanica pf185 persists after spraying and controls Myzuspersicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Colletotrichumacutatum (Glomerellales: Glomerellaceae) in pepper. Insects. 2021;12(7):1–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sun T, Shen Z, Shaukat M, Du C, Ali S. Endophytic isolates of Cordycepsfumosorosea to enhance the growth of Solanummelongena and reduce the survival of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). Insects. 2020;11(2):8–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mantzoukas S, Chondrogiannis C, Grammatikopoulos G. Effects of three endophytic entomopathogens on sweet sorghum and on the larvae of the stalk borer Sesamianonagrioides. Entomol Exp Appl. 2015;154(1):78–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lopez DC, Zhu-Salzman K, Ek-Ramos MJ, Sword GA. The entomopathogenic fungal endophytes Purpureocillium lilacinum (formerly Paecilomyceslilacinus) and Beauveria bassiana negatively affect cotton aphid reproduction under both greenhouse and field conditions. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Elena GJ, Beatriz PJ, Alejandro P, Roberto LE. Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin promotes growth and has endophytic activity in tomato plants. Adv Biol Res (Rennes). 2011;5(1):22–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rasool S, Vidkjær NH, Hooshmand K, Jensen B, Fomsgaard IS, Meyling N V. Seed inoculations with entomopathogenic fungi affect aphid populations coinciding with modulation of plant secondary metabolite profiles across plant families. New Phytol. 2021;229(3):1715–27. doi: 10.1111/nph.16979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Allah Bakhsh

5 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-19772Inoculation and colonization of entomopathogenic fungi, Cordyceps javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum  in tomato plants, and their effect on seedlings growth, population, and adult emergence of whitefly, B. tabaci (Gennadius).PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jamian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Allah Bakhsh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/fileid=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund), Nigeria for providing a Ph.D. scholarship and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) for the general support during the study.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 “This study was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Grant no. 5540212; reference code FRGS/1/2019/WAB01/UPM/02/36). he funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is not acceptable in present form. Title: Inoculation and Colonization of Entomopathogenic Fungi, 2 Cordyceps javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum in 3 Tomato Plants, and their effect on Seedlings Growth, 4 Population, and adult Emergence of Whitefly, Bemisia 5 tabaci (Gennadius)

The authors should give full names of Cordyceps javanica e.g. should be written as when it appears fort he first time and in title e.g. Cordyceps javanica (wf GA17)

Purpureocillium lilacinum shold be written as Purpureocillium lilacinum (Thom) Luangsa-ard, Hou- braken, Hywel-Jones & Samson (2011) when it appears first time and in the title.

There is no problem about control treatments used in the experiment.

Thereafter, the two names could be written as C. javanica and P. lilacinum in the annotated text of the paper. There is need to give more information. The topic is very interesting. Therefore present abstract should be rewritten to give more details about the experiment.

The authors should give more information about the induced conclusions based on the experimental results.

Purpureocillium lilacinum should be written as

Keywords: All words shown in the title must not be shown in the keywords.

İs very long. It shooould be shortened

The authors should not use the language of first or second person. All paper should be written in the language of third person.

Reviewer #2: General comments

This is an interesting study of the endophytic colonization of tomato plants with two of the less studied species of entomopathogenic fungi. Fungal inoculation was performed by treating the seeds with conidia suspensions. The subsequently inoculated seeds were allowed to germinate and various aspects of the plants were then studies: colonization of different parts of the plants from day 15 to day 60 post inoculation; plant development: seedling height/length, number of leaves, fresh and dry weight of roots, shoots and leaves. Furthermore, the authors also looked at some aspects of the interaction of EFP colonized plants with an important tomato pest, B. tabaci. In that case the authors looked at mortality of B. tabaci adults placed on the plants and an adult emergence test, which I could not understand at all.

The results showed the highly positive effects of both fungal isolates on plant development (which has been shown many times before for other EPF endophytes), however, the increased leaf number data is really odd.

The colonization of different parts of the plants was variable, with the highest % in leaves, followed by stems and a low level of colonization in roots. The peak colonization was seen at 30 days, falling rapidly at 60 days for leaves. The pattern for stem colonization was different to that of leaves, with the highest levels at 15 days, dropping off at 30 days.

Importantly, the authors used confocal microscopy to look at plant colonization. However, they give little attention to these results and put the images in the supporting material. In fact, the data for microscopy needs explaining as it is rather confusing, but maybe it is worth exploring in more detail as very few endophyte studies have used this technique.

The data for insect-plant interactions is also very confusing, with very little explanation of the M&M or results.

I have made some corrections to the PDF file, but the English needs a general overhaul.

Specific comments

Modify the title as very confusing!

See attached file.

Reviewer #3: The hypothesis of the work is wonderful. Eventhough, some monor corrections/typos needs to be corrected. However, it is not clear that how the auther has conducted the mortality experiments? How the experiment was conducted ? the the adults were relased and observed? simultaneously how the emergence observation were recorded. This methodology part need to be described well so as to further understand the esults and conclusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: The paper should be written in the language of third person. moreover following information is also needed

Title: Inoculation and Colonization of Entomopathogenic Fungi, 2 Cordyceps javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum in 3 Tomato Plants, and their effect on Seedlings Growth, 4 Population, and adult Emergence of Whitefly, Bemisia 5 tabaci (Gennadius)

The authors should give full names of Cordyceps javanica e.g. should be written as when it appears fort he first time and in title e.g. Cordyceps javanica (wf GA17)

Purpureocillium lilacinum shold be written as Purpureocillium lilacinum (Thom) Luangsa-ard, Hou- braken, Hywel-Jones & Samson (2011) when it appears first time and in the title.

There is no problem about control treatments used in the experiment.

Thereafter, the two names could be written as C. javanica and P. lilacinum in the annotated text of the paper. There is need to give more information in abstract about the experiment. The topic is very interesting. Therefore present abstract should be rewritten to give more details about the experiment.

The authors should give more information about the induced conclusions based on the experimental results.

Purpureocillium lilacinum should be written as

Keywords: All words shown in the title must not be shown in the keywords to avoid duplication of key words. the title is very long. It should be shortened.

The authors should not use the language of first or second person. All paper should be written in the language of third person.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Satish Kumar Sain

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_reviewer r1.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Supporting information _Plos one.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_sks.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 May 22;18(5):e0285666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285666.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Jan 2023

The authors are very much thankful to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable comments. We have now incorporated all the two reviewers’ comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Details of our response to each comment, corrections and suggestions are given in a separate file title "response of reviewer comments". However, funding information have been removed in the acknowledgments section and has been corrected as directed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers General comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

Allah Bakhsh

10 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-19772R1Inoculation and colonization of the entomopathogenic fungi, Isaria javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum, in tomato plants, and their effect on seedling growth, mortality and adult emergence of  Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jamian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Allah Bakhsh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have carefully read and evaluated the paper. I found and recommend that the paper should be accepted and published.

Reviewer #2: It is somewhat tiring to re-review a manuscript where the authors haven’t taken into consideration your request to at least improve the English language beyond the corrections I marked in the manuscript. I have made some more corrections but many phrases are poorly constructed and the authors obviously did not ask for any help from a native speaker who understands the area. The description of the adult emergence experiment is still poor and the terminology for the adult survival experiment is also incorrect (population reduction: would be in the field but in a greenhouse, it is mortality or survival).

Reviewer #3: The name of the EPF is still Isaria javanica in place of Cordyceps javanica which is the latest name. I do not understand why this big mistake has happened in the revised MS

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: the review is done and the paper is evaluated by myself

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Satish Kumar Sain

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R1_reviewer extra comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R1_reviewer (1).pdf

PLoS One. 2023 May 22;18(5):e0285666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285666.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Mar 2023

The authors are very much thankful to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable comments. We have now incorporated all the two reviewers’ comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 1 extra Comments.docx

Decision Letter 2

Allah Bakhsh

20 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-19772R2Inoculation and colonization of the entomopathogenic fungi, Isaria javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum, in tomato plants, and their effect on seedling growth, mortality and adult emergence of  Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jamian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Allah Bakhsh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I have corrected your manuscript yet again. I guess it is ok now but please stop using the term population for a group of insects in a cage or pot.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R2_reviewer really last chance! 04 03 23.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 May 22;18(5):e0285666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285666.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


25 Apr 2023

The authors are very much thankful to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable comments. We have now incorporated all the

reviewers’ comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Allah Bakhsh

28 Apr 2023

Inoculation and colonization of the entomopathogenic fungi, Isaria javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum, in tomato plants, and their effect on seedling growth, mortality and adult emergence of  Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)

PONE-D-22-19772R3

Dear Dr. Jamian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Allah Bakhsh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Allah Bakhsh

9 May 2023

PONE-D-22-19772R3

Inoculation and colonization of the entomopathogenic fungi, Isaria javanica and Purpureocillium lilacinum, in tomato plants, and their effect on seedling growth, mortality and adult emergence of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)

Dear Dr. Jamian:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Allah Bakhsh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Bioassay cages used to evaluate the effect of endophytic EPF against B. tabaci.

    (A) Cage used to examine the effect of endophytic EPF on B. tabaci Population (B) Cage used to examine Adult Emergence of B. tabaci.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Examples of endophytic EPF (Cjc-03 and TS-01) re-isolation from the tomato plant tissues.

    (A) Leaf, (B) stem, and (C) root tissues following seed treatment with a fungal conidia suspensions.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Representative laser scanning confocal microscopy images of 30 days old tomato plant tissues colonized by endophytic EPF.

    (A) Cjc-03 (I. javanica) (B) TS-01 (P. lilacinum) with the noticeable spores indicated that the spores are alive on the plant tissues; Germination of conidia and appressorium formation in the stem tissues of (C) Cjc-03 (I. javanica), (D) TS-01 (P. lilacinum).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Fungal endophytes used in the study.

    Species, accession number, origin, and EPF host species.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_reviewer r1.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Supporting information _Plos one.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_sks.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers General comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R1_reviewer extra comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R1_reviewer (1).pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 1 extra Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19772_R2_reviewer really last chance! 04 03 23.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES