Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Oct 18;18(10):e0292992. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292992

Development of a bioassay method to test activity of cry insecticidal proteins against Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) sugarcane stem borers

Juan Sebastián Ángel-Salazar 1, Claudia Echeverri-Rubiano 1, Jairo Rodríguez-Chalarca 2, Jershon López-Gerena 1, Rafael Ferreira dos Santos 3, Juan Luis Jurat-Fuentes 3, Alexandra M Revynthi 4, Germán Vargas 4,*
Editor: Omaththage P Perera5
PMCID: PMC10584178  PMID: 37851680

Abstract

The genus Diatraea (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) includes stem borers representing the most critical sugarcane pests in the Americas. Colombia’s most widely distributed and damaging Diatraea species include Diatraea saccharalis, D. indigenella, D. busckella, and D. tabernella. The reduced efficacy of biological tools commonly used in controlling several species highlights the importance of evaluating alternative management strategies, such as transgenic plants expressing insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The selection of optimal Bt insecticidal proteins for Diatraea control depends on bioassays with purified Bt proteins. Because there is no described artificial diet for borer species other than D. saccharalis and availability of most purified Bt toxins is restricted, this study aimed at developing a bioassay method using fresh corn tissue and providing proof of concept by testing susceptibility to the Cry1Ac insecticidal protein from Bt. Toxicity was evaluated with a single Cry1Ac dose applied directly to corn discs. Stem borer mortality after seven days was higher than 90% for all four tested Diatraea species, while control mortality was below 8%. In addition, we observed that Cry1Ac caused more than 90% weight inhibition in all survivors and delayed development. These results validate the use of this method to determine mortality and growth inhibition due to the consumption of the Cry1Ac protein in each of the Diatraea species. Furthermore, this method could be used to assess other entomopathogenic substances to control these insect pests.

Introduction

Sugarcane is an important crop in the tropics and subtropics worldwide, where it is mainly grown to produce sucrose, alcohol, electricity, and panela (Jaggery or non-centrifuged sugar) [1, 2]. Colombia has one of the highest global sugarcane productions per area unit, yet stem borers cause significant yield losses, ranging from 100 to 143 Kg of sucrose per hectare, and per each percent of bored internodes [3, 4]. Among the lepidopteran species described as sugarcane stem borers [3], most belong to the family Crambidae [5] and to the Diatraea genus in the Western Hemisphere. The most updated report on the Diatraea genus indicates that 41 species are present in the Americas [6, 7].

Diatraea stem borers attack sugarcane in all its developmental stages, with production losses depending on the crop stage and damage caused [8]. Attacks on young plants can significantly damage the leaves and stem tissues and cause the syndrome called “dead heart” (apical bud death). However, this syndrome only reduces sugarcane production when most shoots are affected and if insect feeding continues for at least a month, resulting in reductions up to 30% of harvested sucrose [9]. In addition, bored holes facilitate infection by the fungi Colletotrichum falcatum, resulting in rotting and reduced sucrose content. Losses caused by Diatraea stem borers have been estimated as a reduction in both total biomass production (up to 109 Kg of sucrose per hectare and per each percent of bored internodes) and sucrose content (up to 34 Kg of sucrose per hectare and per each percent of bored internodes) [4, 5].

At least six species of the genus Diatraea have been reported to affect Colombia’s sugarcane crops [7, 10]. Although some sugarcane industries rely on chemical control for the borer’s management; in Colombia, these pests have been mainly managed using biological control agents attacking the egg and larval stages [11]. However, decreased effectiveness of several parasitoids has been observed on Diatraea species found in the Cauca River Valley (CRV), the most industrialized area for sugarcane production in Colombia, primarily due to the expression of host resistance from Diatraea tabernella Dyar and Diatraea busckella Dyar & Heinrich to the main parasitoids used in the CRV [12]. As a result, searching for new management strategies complementary or alternative to current control tools is needed.

One control option is the use of Cry [13, 14] and Vip3 [15] insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) (Bt). These proteins target midgut cells and disrupt the epithelial barrier, allowing passage of bacteria into the main body cavity resulting in lethal septicemia [16]. Bt proteins and insecticides’ beneficial hallmarks are their high specificity and established history of safety to vertebrates and non-target insects [13]. Given the boring activity displayed by Diatraea spp. in sugarcane, transgenic plants producing Bt insecticidal proteins are the preferred alternative for controlling sugarcane stem borers [17]. The efficacy of these insecticidal proteins is commonly evaluated in bioassays under controlled conditions with the purified protein incorporated in an artificial diet and monitoring survival and development [18], or by direct observation of their efficacy in plants in the field [19]. Several studies have assessed the activity of diverse Bt proteins, such as Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry1F, Cry2Ab, and Vip3Aa20, on sugarcane stem borers, including Diatraea saccharalis (F.), Diatraea flavipennella Box and Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) [15, 17, 2023]. These studies were facilitated by the availability of an artificial diet capable of sustaining D. saccharalis development and reproduction [24, 25].

In Colombia, four Diatraea species present the most significant distribution and economic impact on sugarcane: D. busckella, D. indigenella, D. saccharalis (F.), and D. tabernella [7, 11]. Except for D. saccharalis, no artificial diet is available for testing insecticidal protein activity on other species. Additional research is warranted in relation to the development of an artificial diet for the additional Diatraea species (i.e., D. busckella, D. indigenella and D. tabernella). Investing additional effort will yield appropriate diets for these species. However, a potential challenge arises from the necessity of utilizing distinct diets for each species, which could complicate the comparability of survival and biological responses in trials where comparisons among different species are required. Performing experiments using a species-specific diet, would increase the variation in the set-up, hindering this was straightforward comparisons among Diatraea species. In solving this current knowledge gap, this study focused on establishing an alternative method using a fresh food substrate for evaluating susceptibility to Cry proteins and providing proof of concept by testing Cry1Ac susceptibility in D. busckella, D. indigenella, and D. tabernella. Results using corn discs as a food source support high susceptibility to Cry1Ac in all tested Diatraea spp. and validate this method for future trials using alternative Bt proteins, commercial pesticides, or plant tissues expressing insecticidal proteins.

Materials and methods

Insects

The entomology laboratory at the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (known by the Spanish acronym Cenicaña), located in Florida, Valle del Cauca, Colombia, supplied the insects used in this study. All insect colonies were obtained from sugarcane collections in the CRV and maintained in a climate-controlled room at a temperature of 25 ± 1°C, 70 ± 4% RH, and 12:12 L:D photoperiod; on slices of tender corn cob previously disinfected by flame sterilization using laboratory burners for 15–20 seconds. All insects used in bioassays corresponded to first generation individuals from field-collected insects. Corn cobs for rearing larval feeding were sliced into pieces (0.5 ± 0.1 cm thick) using an 11–1/4–inch Alligator Slicer (Alligator of Sweden, Upplands Vasby, Sweden) and subsequently cut into discs with a hole punch (1.4 cm diameter). The maize cultivar SV 1035 was grown conventionally (mineral fertilization with NPK and manual weed control) under field conditions, but without using insecticides, while ensuring it was situated 2 kilometers away from other commercial corn crops. This strategic separation aimed to prevent any potential cross-contamination. The harvesting process was done manually at 70 days of the crop cycle. Coincidentally, this same source of corn was also employed as a substrate to sustain the various Diatraea species stock colonies at the Cenicaña entomology laboratory. To confirm the absence of any expression of Bt proteins, we conducted regular assessments of survival within the stock colonies. Corn was used instead of sugarcane because it allows the development of all borer species and presents a lower level of fermentation [26].

Insecticidal protein purification

The Cry1Ac protoxin was produced in cultures of Bacillus thuringiensis strain HD73, obtained from the Bacillus Genetic Stock Center (Columbus, OH, USA) in 1/3 tryptic soy broth (TSB) medium at 28°C with shaking for 72h. After collecting spores and Cry1Ac protein crystals by centrifugation at 6,000rpm for 30min, pellets were washed in 1M NaCl plus 0.1% Triton-X-100, and this collection and washing cycle was repeated twice until the final pellet was washed with MilliQ water. The Cry1Ac crystals were solubilized at 30°C in carbonate buffer (50mM Na2CO3, 0.1M NaCl, 0.1% 2-mercaptoethanol, pH10.5), and the solubilized Cry1Ac protoxin activated by digestion with bovine TPCK-treated trypsin (Sigma, ≥10,000 BAEE units/mg) at a final concentration of 0.2mg/ml for 1 hour. Activated Cry1Ac toxin was purified by anion exchange in a Hitrap Q HP column (GE Healthcare) connected to an ÄKTA chromatography system (GE LifeSciences), using a linear gradient of 1M NaCl for elution. The purified Cry1Ac toxin was quantified using BSA as a standard [27] and shipped frozen to Cenicaña for testing.

Bioassay

Tests were performed on four Diatraea species, Diatraea saccharalis, D. indigenella, D. tabernella, and D. busckella, by exposing neonates (< 24 h after hatching) to cob corn discs prepared as described before, 70–75 days after planting, when kernels were at the milk stage (R3), using same cultivar and growing conditions described above. In general, the corn kernel at the milk stage is on the cusp of maturity, yet it remains soft and brimming with a milky fluid. This fluid is rich in carbohydrates, mainly in the form of sugars. At the start of the R3 stage, approximately 80% of its content comprises water. Non-peeled cob corns were store at 8°C for no more than one week.

Bioassays were performed using 128-well bioassay trays (CD International Pitman, NJ), with a 2% agar plug poured and solidified at the bottom of each well to retain moisture and turgidity of the corn material used as feeding substrate. A corn disc with a surface area of 1.54 cm2 and 0.5 ± 0.1 cm thick was incorporated into each well. The Cry1Ac protein in water containing 0.1%Triton-X 100 (total volume) was added to the surface of the discs. To account for any effects of moisturizing the cob corn discs with water and detergent (Triton-X 100), control larvae were exposed to discs treated with water and detergent. A concentration of 619.5 μg/ml in a final volume of 60 μl per well was used over an area of 1.54 cm2, representing 24.1 μg/cm2 of Cry1Ac. This lethal diagnostic dose was selected in assessing toxicity based on previously reported LC50 values for Cry1Ac from diet surface bioassays with D. saccharalis [2830] and D. flavipennella [21], but also based on trial-and-error observations trying to guarantee coverage and efficacy of the application over the fresh tissue.

The volume of 60 μl was uniformly applied onto the corn tissue using a 100 μl Eppendorf pipette. The tray was then balanced after each application to facilitate protein dispersion and absorption within the tissue. The corn disc substrate was allowed to absorb the solution for 1 h, then one first instar larva was added per disc. Wells were then sealed with air-permeable lids (CD International Pitman, NJ) and trays maintained at laboratory conditions mentioned previously. Mortality was scored 7 days after infestation, by assessing any level of activity in treated larvae. Larvae that survived the protein treatment were subsequently transferred to a control diet (corn cob discs treated with water and detergent) to observe further development.

Considering insect availability in the colony, Diatraea species were tested in separate weeks against their control. Each combination of Diatraea species and the protein were evaluated separately using a tray containing 16 wells. Simultaneously, a separate tray was designated as the control, at it contained water and detergent. As an air-permeable lid separated each group of 16 wells, it was considered an independent replicate, and the 16 wells were considered subsamples. Hence each combination of species and treatment had eight replicates, for a total of 128 larvae evaluated per species and treatment.

Study variables

Variables were recorded 7 days after infestation, including larval mortality, weight, and instar. Percentage mortality (%M) was estimated from the number of dead individuals considering the number of individuals established in the bioassay using the formula %M = (m / N) * 100, where m is the total number of dead insects in the treatment, and N is the total number of insects established in the treatment. Surviving larvae were weighted using a Mettler Toledo AB204 (Switzerland) analytical balance (precision ± 0.1 mg). These surviving individuals were then transferred to untreated corn to determine if they presented late mortality or if they managed to complete development.

The Growth Index for Survival (GIS) and Relative Growth Index (RGI) [31] were estimated considering the developmental stage of live and dead individuals. Instar information was gathered based on morphological characteristics for all the borer species under study [26]. Under the laboratory conditions described above, larvae of the four borer species tested took 3 days to grow from the first larval instar (L1) to the second instar (L2) and 4 days to grow from L2 to the third instar (L3), totaling 7 days from L1 to L3. The GIS was estimated using the formula:

GIS=[(n1×L1)+(n2×L2)++(nx×Lx)]/(N×Lx);

Where n1 was the number of individuals in instar L1, n2 was the number of individuals in instar L2, and so forth, N corresponds to the total number of insects established in the treatment, and Lx was the maximum instar reached in the control treatment. After estimating the GIS for the control and treatment, the RGI for each species was calculated as the division between the GIS of the treatment and that of the control, where RGI < 1 indicates that the individuals survived or died in the early stages, RGI = 0 no development (or all killed in the first stage), and RGI = 1 complete development of individuals in the test group (or no difference from the control group) [32].

Percentage Growth Inhibition for Weight (%GI) [33] was calculated using the average larval weight from each replicate of the Cry1Ac treatments relative to the average weight in respective control treatments, calculated as follows:

%GI=1(TWIT/TNIT)/(TWIC/TNIC)x100;

Where TWIT is the total weight of insects in the treatment, TNIT is the total number of insects in the treatment, TWIC is the total weight of insects in the control treatment, and TNIC is the total number of insects in the control treatment [33].

Contamination is not an issue in bioassays when using artificial diets as feeding substrates because they typically contain antimicrobial compounds. Our bioassays used fresh corn tissue (tender corn) as substrate, which is susceptible to fungal contamination. Therefore, we monitored and quantified fungal contamination levels. The percentage of corn contamination (%C) in each treatment was evaluated based on the presence of fungal mycelia on the corn surface as follows:

%C=(c/N)*100;

where c was the number of wells contaminated in the treatment, and N corresponds to the total number of wells established for that treatment.

Statistical analyses

Experiments were arranged under a completely randomized design, with a factorial structure considering Diatraea species and treatments (Cry1Ac protein and control) as fixed effects and analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS 8.2) [34]. The 16 wells within each of the eight replicates were considered subsamples, and well effects were considered random. Each combination of Diatraea species and the protein was made performed once using a single borer generation. Mortality was analyzed as a proportion of dead larvae within each replicate, assuming binomial distribution, whereas indexes of the stage of development (GIS and RGI) and weight (%GI) were analyzed with available (alive) individuals, assuming Gaussian distribution. The mean weight of surviving larvae was also analyzed assuming Gaussian distribution. Fungi contamination of wells was estimated as the proportion of wells contaminated from the total 16 wells per replicate (subsample), and analyzed assuming a binomial distribution. Means were separated by Tukey tests (α = 0.05). In addition, linear regressions comparing the proportion of contaminated wells with the proportion of dead larvae in the controls and the proportion of contaminated wells with the proportion of larvae killed in the treatment were analyzed by linear regression (PROC REG, SAS 8.2) [34].

Results

Mortality

Percentage mortality attributable to Cry1Ac (24.1 μg/cm2) consumption was higher than 90% for all the four evaluated species, while control mortality was less than 8% (Fig 1). Analyses detected no effect attributable to borer species (F = 2.18; df = 3, 56; P = 0.099) nor the interaction between borer species and treatment (F = 2.30; df = 3, 56; P = 0.087); however, there was evidence of a treatment effect, with mortality being higher in the Cry1Ac treatment (F = 319.21; df = 1, 56; P < 0.001).

Fig 1. Mean percent mortality for a diagnostic Cry1Ac dose (24.1 μg/cm2) coated on corn discs against Diatraea stem borer species: D. busckella, D. indigenella, D. saccharalis, and D. tabernella.

Fig 1

Analyses detected no effect attributable to borer species, but statistically different treatments are separated with uppercase letters within each species (Tukey, α = 0.05).

Growth Index for Survival (GIS) and Relative Growth Index (RGI)

Growth index for survival (GIS) analysis detected an effect attributable to borer species, with D. indigenella presenting the highest growth (F = 4.84; df = 3, 56; P = 0.004). A treatment effect was also evidenced, with the GIS being higher in control (F = 3,652.74; df = 1, 56; P < 0.001), as well as an interaction between borer species and treatment, with the control treatment of D. indigenella presenting the highest GIS (F = 3.85; df = 3, 56; P = 0.014) (Fig 2). Many larvae reached the second and third instar in the control treatment, while in the Cry1Ac protein treatment, almost all larvae showed growth inhibition and remained in the first instar (Fig 3). Among D. busckella larvae treated with the protein, only six reached the second instar, while control treatments exhibited 89.3% and 90.5% more larvae in the second and third instar, respectively. Similarly, in the same species, 95% more larvae progressed to the second and third instar in control treatments compared to those treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. For D. indigenella, control treatments showed 68% and 88% more larvae advancing to the second and third instar, respectively compared to those individuals treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. In D. saccharalis, control treatments showed between 93% and 91% more larvae reaching second and third instar, respectively in contrast to those treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. Likewise, in D. tabernella, control treatments exhibited between 96% and 93% more larvae moving between the second and third instar, respectively, compared to the individuals treated with the protein and observed in the first instar (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Mean Growth index for Survival (GIS ± SEM) considering the developmental stage of live individuals (between L1 and L3) of Diatraea larvae surviving 7 days after treatment with corn discs coated with Cry1Ac (24.1 μg/cm2), compared with control treatment.

Fig 2

Statistically different means for all pairwise comparisons among species and treatments are separated with uppercase letters (Tukey, α = 0.05).

Fig 3. Number of surviving larvae after feeding on corn discs coated with Cry1Ac (24.1 μg/cm2) and in control.

Fig 3

L1, L2, and L3 refer to the three larval instars observed.

Based on GIS estimates for both treated and control larvae, RGI values in larvae treated with Cry1Ac protein showed levels of growth below 5% compared to those from the controls; with mean values of 0.01 (± 0.01 SEM) for D. tabernella, 0.02 (± 0.01 SEM) for D. saccharalis, 0.03 (± 0.01 SEM) for D. indigenella, and 0.05 (± 0.02 SEM) for D. busckella; but no significant differences were detected among species (F = 2.04; df = 3, 28; P = 0.134).

Growth Inhibition for weight (%GI)

The percentage of growth inhibition for the weight (%GI) varied between 93.2% (D. busckella), 95.7% (D. indigenella), 97.7% (D. saccharalis), and 96.3% (D. tabernella), with no significant differences between species (F = 2.77; df = 3, 11; P = 0.091). Only 4% (5 larvae) of D. saccharalis individuals that consumed Cry1Ac survived and weighted approximately 47-fold lower than the average in control treatment (Fig 4). These larvae did not survive more than one day after the 7-day exposure to treatment when they were then moved to a control diet. Lower weight inhibition was observed in surviving individuals of D. tabernella (about 28-fold) and D. indigenella (approximately 24-fold) that consumed Cry1Ac, compared to controls (Fig 4), with a survival of only 2% (11 larvae) and 8% (3 larvae), respectively. However, these larvae did not survive more than one day (D. tabernella) or survived up to four days (D. indigenella) after the 7-days exposure to treatment, when they were then moved to a control diet; in addition, larvae did not show growth or molting during this period. The weight of surviving D. busckella individuals was the least affected, with a 16-fold lower weight than in controls (Fig 4), yet the survival of these larvae was only 7% (9 larvae) and they did not survive more than two days after the 7-days exposure to treatment when they were then moved to a control diet. A general weighted mean among the species showed that larvae survived 1.2 days after the 7-days exposure to treatment.

Fig 4. Mean larval weight (± SEM) of Diatraea larvae surviving 7 days after treatment with corn discs coated with Cry1Ac (24.1 μg/cm2), compared with control treatment.

Fig 4

Statistically different means for all pairwise comparisons among species and treatments are separated with uppercase letters (Tukey, α = 0.05).

Analysis of mean larval weights detected an effect of borer species, with D. saccharalis being the species that presented the highest weight increase over time and D. tabernella the lowest (F = 32.68; df = 3, 56; P < 0.001). Results also showed a treatment effect, with the control treatment presenting a higher average weight than the Cry1Ac treatment (F = 966.69; df = 1, 56; P < 0.001). The interaction between borer species and treatment was also evident, with D. saccharalis presenting the highest average weight (F = 32.13; df = 3, 56; P < 0.001) in the control treatment concerning the other species and treatments. In contrast, no differences were found in the weight of surviving larvae on the Cry1Ac treatment (Fig 4).

Bioassay contamination

The contamination analysis in the corn discs showed an effect of the borer species, with the lowest percentage of contaminated wells occurring in D. indigenella (F = 4.40; df = 3, 56, P = 0.007). A treatment effect was also found, with the percentage of contaminated wells being higher in the Cry1Ac treatment (F = 5.22; df = 1, 56; P = 0.026) and no evidence of interaction between borer species and treatment was detected (F = 1.31; df = 3, 56; P = 0.279) (Fig 5). However, no correlation was found between the percentage of contaminated wells and the percentage of mortality when all species were combined, neither in the control (F = 0.14; df = 1, 30; P = 0.706) nor in the Cry1Ac treatment (F = 1.01; df = 1, 30; P = 0.323).

Fig 5. Percentage of contaminated wells (± SEM) 7 days after coating corn discs with Cry1Ac (24.1 μg/cm2), compared with control treatment with no protein.

Fig 5

Statistically different species are separated with upper case letters within each treatment, while statistically different treatments are separated with lowercase letters within each species (Tukey, α = 0.05).

Discussion

Bioassay experiments are critical to identifying active insecticidal proteins against Diatraea spp., a genus including the most widely distributed boring pests of sugarcane in the western hemisphere [7]. Previous reports presented data evaluating insecticidal proteins from B. thuringiensis against D. saccharalis [15, 16, 23, 28, 29, 30] and Bt isolates against D. flavipennella [21] using artificial diets. The lack of available artificial diets supporting larvae growth has prevented testing susceptibility to these insecticidal proteins in other relevant Diatraea species. In resolving this knowledge gap, we developed a new method using corn leaf discs coated with treatments. We tested its utility in determining susceptibility to the Cry1Ac insecticidal protein in the most widely distributed sugarcane borer species in Colombia. Mortality in control treatment in the developed bioassay protocol did not exceed 10%, as recommended by Beegle [18] when working with artificial diets. Interestingly, we detected weight and developmental differences between the tested species in the control treatment, with D. saccharalis presenting the highest average weight and D indigenella with the highest number of third instar larvae. This variation is also observed under rearing conditions [26], showing that the bioassay can sustain normal biological function. In contrast to controls, high mortality was observed in Cry1Ac treatments with larvae of D. saccharalis, as expected from the increased susceptibility to that protein reported from bioassays using artificial diets for this species [21, 28, 30].

The new bioassay method allowed, for the first time, determining that high susceptibility to Cry1Ac in D. saccharalis extends to other relevant sugarcane borer species in Colombia: D. busckella, D. indigenella, and D. tabernella. These observations support the use of this bioassay for testing insecticidal protein activity in Diatraea species lacking an artificial diet. However, it is essential to note that if we compare this new tissue bioassay with the one using an artificial diet [21], where a concentration of 619.5 μg/ml would be applied over an area of 1.77 cm2, the use of 30 μl in each well will represent 10.5 μg/cm2 of Cry1Ac, meaning that more than double of the protein is required for coating the tissue (i.e., 24.1 μg/cm2) and effectively expose the insects. Given the challenges and expenses associated with producing Cry1Ac, ensuring a streamlined and cost-effective screening process would necessitate dedicated efforts towards formulating an artificial diet that sufficiently supports the development of different Diatraea species.

Bioassays with fresh tissue were previously reported as successful set-ups for testing the activity of Bt insecticidal proteins. Examples include Cry3 and Cry7Aa activity in Coleoptera using potato tubers and potato flour as substrate [35]. However, plant derivatives, such as carotenoids, have been shown to influence Cry1Ac toxicity in bioassays [36]. Using fresh tissue offers the possibility of fungal contamination, as we detected in our method. Treatment with Cry1Ac and subsequent larval death could increase the likelihood of observing fungal contamination, yet we did not detect a correlation between treatment, mortality, and fungal contamination. Contamination was significantly influenced by species, suggesting that some Diatraea species may be more prone to harbor/distribute fungal contaminants.

Information on growth inhibition complements mortality data, allowing the detection of possible sublethal effects of Cry proteins. Individuals from all tested species surviving Cry1Ac exposure presented severe growth inhibition, reflected in a significant decrease in weight and stunting as indicated by RGI values, wherein the best of cases, larvae grew only 5% of the expected size considering size in controls. Similar weight reduction was previously reported for D. saccharalis exposed to Cry1Ab [23] and Vip3Aa20 [15]. Observations with larvae of S. frugiperda [29] and Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) [28] suggested that heavily stunted larvae (not growing beyond first instar and weighing less than 0.1 mg) after exposure to Bt insecticidal proteins should be considered as dead because they eventually die without completing development. Our observations support this idea, as all surviving larvae presented stunting after Cry1Ac treatment for all species and died shortly after concluding the bioassay.

Conclusions

This study proposes an alternative, novel method to evaluate Bt insecticidal proteins using fresh corn tissue to determine their toxicity on Diatraea species. The bioassay is based on the technical criteria recommended for protocols using artificial diets, such as maintaining control treatment mortality below 10%. However, sanitation of the work area and careful operations are fundamental to reducing the potential for contamination of the corn substrate during the bioassays, thus helping to obtain consistent results. The high susceptibility to Cry1Ac detected for all tested species, reflected as mortality and heavy stunting of survivors, confirms the potential of Cry proteins for Diatraea spp. control. Future work is focused on performing dose-response bioassays and determining toxicity parameters (LD50 and LD90) for the different Diatraea species. These results can serve as a starting point for genetically engineering sugarcane varieties with highly active insecticidal proteins to prevent stem borer attacks. However, considering the challenges and expenses involved in Cry1Ac production, establishing an efficient and economical screening procedure would require focused endeavors in formulating an artificial diet that adequately nurtures the growth of various Diatraea species. Future developments in the area would expedite alternatives to the use of chemical insecticides in the control of the stem borers, and it would also need to consider its integration with sugarcane stem borers IPM programs, where biological control is considered a significant pest management factor in several sugar industries in the Americas.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S2 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sandra Valencia from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Orlando Rojas and Alvaro Urresti from the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (Cenicaña) for providing the logistical and technical support required to conduct this study. We also thank staff from the Insect Molecular Pathology and Resistance laboratory from the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology of the University of Tennessee, for their work in the insecticidal protein production.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors thank Alliance Bioversity-CIAT (The International Center for Tropical Agriculture) for providing the logistical support required to conduct this study and the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (Cenicaña) for technical and financial support to the first author. The NC246 Multistate Hatch project from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the University of Tennessee provided support for insecticidal protein production. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Srikanth J, Subramonian N, Premachandran MN. Advances in transgenic research for insect resistance in sugarcane. Trop Plant Biol. 2011; 4: 52–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Asociación de Cultivadores de Caña de Azúcar de Colombia (Asocaña)-Sector Agroindustrial de la Caña. Aspectos generales del sector agroindustrial de la caña 2017–2018: informe anual. Cali, Colombia: Impresos Richard; 2018. 70 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Long WH, Hensley SD. Insect pests of sugar cane. Annu Rev Entomol. 1972; 32: 341–360. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gómez LA, Vargas GA. Los barrenadores de la caña de azúcar, Diatraea spp. en el valle del río Cauca: investigación participativa con énfasis en control biológico [Working document no. 734]. Cali, Colombia: Centro de Investigación de la Caña de Azúcar (Cenicaña); 2014. 133 p. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2544.0165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vargas GA, Gómez LA, Michaud JP. Sugarcane stem borers of the Colombian Cauca River valley: current pest status, biology, and control. Fla Entomol. 2015; 98: 728–735. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bleszynski S. The taxonomy of the Crambine moth borers of sugar cane. In: Williams JR, Metcalf JR, Montgomery RW, Mather R, editors. Pests of sugar cane. New York: Elsevier; 1969, p. 11–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Solis MA, Metz MA. An illustrated guide to the identification of the known species of Diatraea Guilding (Lepidoptera, Crambidae, Crambinae) based on genitalia. Zookeys. 2016; 565: 73–121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gómez LA, Lastra LA. (1995). Insectos asociados con la caña de azúcar en Colombia. In: Cassalett C, Torres J, Issacs C, editors. El cultivo de la caña en la zona azucarera de Colombia. Cali, Colombia: Centro de Investigación de la Caña de Azúcar (Cenicaña); 1995. p. 237–258. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pantoja JE, Londoño F, Gómez LA. Evaluación del efecto de los corazones muertos causados por Elasmopalpus lignosellus Zeller y otros barrenadores del tallo de la caña de azúcar en el valle del Cauca. Int Sugar J. 1994, 96: 232–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Barrera GP, Villamizar LF, Espinel C, Quintero EM, Belaich MN, Toloza DL, et al. Identification of Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) based on cytochrome oxidase II. PLoS One. 2017; 12: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vargas G, Lastra LA, Ramírez GD, Solís MA. The Diatraea complex (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Colombia’s Cauca river valley: making a case for the geographically localized approach. Neotrop Entomol. 2018; 47: 395–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aya VM, Montoya-Lerma J, Echeverri-Rubiano C, Michaud JP, Vargas G. Host resistance to two parasitoids (Diptera: Tachinidae) helps explain a regional outbreak of novel Diatraea spp. stem borers (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Colombian sugarcane. Biol Control. 2019; 129: 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Soberón M, Bravo A. Las toxinas Cry de Bacillus thuringiensis: modo de acción y consecuencias de su aplicación. Biotecnología. 2007; 14: 303–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Al-Khayri JM, Jain SM, Johnson DV. Advances in plant breeding strategies: agronomic, abiotic and biotic stress traits. Adv. Plant Breed. Strateg. Agron. Abiotic Biot. Stress Trait. 2016; 2: 1–707. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bernardi O, Amado D, Sousa RS, Segatti F, Fatoretto J, Burd AD, et al. Baseline susceptibility and monitoring of Brazilian populations of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to Vip3Aa20 insecticidal protein. J Econ Entomol. 2014; 107: 781–790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Abdelgaffar H., Jackson T., Jurat-Fuentes J.L., 2022. Bacterial diseases of insects, in: Rowley A.F., Coates C.J., Whitten M.M. (Eds.), Invertebrate Pathology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cristofoletti PT, Kemper EL, Capella AN, Carmago SR, Cazoto JL, Ferrari F, et al. Development of transgenic sugarcane resistant to sugarcane borer. Trop Plant Biol. 2018; 11: 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beegle CC. Bioassay methods for quantification of Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin In: Hickle LA, Fitch WL, editors. Analytical chemistry of Bacillus thuringiensis. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, ACS Symposium series; 1990. p. 14–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dively GP, Kuhar TP, Taylor SV, Doughty H, Holmstrom K, Gilrein DO, et al. Extended Sentinel Monitoring of Helicoverpa zea Resistance to Cry and Vip3Aa Toxins in Bt Sweet Corn: Assessing Changes in Phenotypic and Allele Frequencies of Resistance. Insects. 2023, 14, 577. doi: 10.3390/insects14070577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gao S, Yang Y, Wang C, Guo J, Zhou D, Wu Q, et al. Transgenic sugarcane with a Cry1Ac gene exhibited better phenotypic traits and enhanced resistance against sugarcane borer. PLoS One. 2016; 11: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lemes ARN, Figureueiredo CS, Sebastião I, da Silva LM, Alves R da C, de Siqueira HAA, et al. Cry1Ac and Vip3Aa proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis targeting Cry toxin resistance in Diatraea flavipennella and Elasmopalpus lignosellus from sugarcane. Peer J. 2017. Jan 17; 5: e2866. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Silva LM, Silva MC, Silva SMFA, Alves RC, Siqueira HAA, and Marques EJ. Toxin gene contents and activity of Bacillus thuringiensis strains against two sugarcane borer species, Diatraea saccharalis (F.) and D. flavipennella (Box). Neotrop Entomol. 2018; 47: 292–301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Girón-Pérez K, Oliveira AL, Teixeira AF, Guedes RNC, Pereira EJG. Susceptibility of Brazilian populations of Diatraea saccharalis to Cry1Ab and response to selection for resistance. Crop Prot. 2014; 62: 124–128. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hensley SD, Hammond AM. Laboratory techniques for rearing the sugarcane borer on an artificial diet. J Econ Entomol. 1968; 61: 1742–1743. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lastra LA, Gómez LA. La cría de Diatraea saccharalis (F.) para la producción masiva de sus enemigos naturales. [Serie Técnica no. 36]. Cali, Colombia: Centro de Investigación de la Caña de Azúcar (Cenicaña); 2006. 30 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Echeverri-Rubiano C, Chica A, Vargas G. Biology of the most widely distributed sugarcane stem borers, Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), in Colombia. Neotrop Entomol. 2022; 51:877–885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bradford MM. A rapid and sentitive method for the quantification of micorgram quatities of protein utilizing the principle od protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976; 72:248–254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abdelgaffar H.M., Oppert C., Sun X., Monserrate J., Jurat-Fuentes J.L. Differential heliothine susceptibility to Cry1Ac associated with gut proteolytic activity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019; 153, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2018.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tan SY, Cayabyab BF, Alcantara EP, Ibrahim Y.B, Huang F., Blankenship E.E., et al. Comparative susceptibility of Ostrinia furnacalis, Ostrinia nubilalis and Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1 toxins. Crop Protect. 2011; 30, 1184–1189. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lemes A.R., Davolos C.C., Legori P.C., Fernandes O.A., Ferré J., Lemos M.V., et al. Synergism and antagonism between Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3A and Cry1 proteins in Heliothis virescens, Diatraea saccharalis and Spodoptera frugiperda. PloS ONE. 2014; 9, e107196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Huang F., Ghimire M.N., Leonard B.R., Zhu Y.C., Head G.P. Susceptibility of field populations of sugarcane borer from non-Bt and Bt maize plants to five individual Cry toxins. Insect Sci. 2012; 19, 570–578. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhang M., Chaudhuri S. K., Kubo I. Quantification of insect growth and its use in screening of naturally occurring insect control agents. J Chem Ecol. 1993; 19(6), 1109–1118. doi: 10.1007/BF00987372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lira J., Beringer J., Burton S., Griffin S., Sheets J., Tan S. Y., et al. Insecticidal activity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Bh1 against Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and other lepidopteran pests. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013; 79: 7590–7597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.SAS Institute. 2019. PROC user’s manual, version 8.2 ed. Cary, NC. SAS Institute. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Martínez O. W, Cerón S. J. Evaluación de la toxicidad de proteínas de Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner hacia el gusano blanco de la papa Premnotrypes vorax Hustache. Agron Colomb. 2002; 19: 89–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zanga D., Sanahuja G., Eizaguirre M., Albajes R., Christou P., Capell T., et al. 2018. Carotenoids moderate the effectiveness of a Bt gene against the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis. PloS One. 10;13(7):e0199317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Omaththage P Perera

31 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-19646Development of a Bioassay Method to Test Activity of Cry Insecticidal Proteins Against Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Sugarcane Stem BorersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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 Sep 14 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,

Omaththage P. Perera, Ph.D., FRES

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/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"The  Alliance Bioversity-Ciat (The International Center for Tropical Agriculture) and the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (Cenicaña) provided logistical and financial support to the first author. The NC246 Multistate Hatch project from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the University of Tennessee provided support for insecticidal protein production."

  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

"The authors thank Alliance Bioversity-Ciat (The International Center for Tropical Agriculture) for providing the logistical support required to conduct this study and the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (Cenicaña) for technical and financial support to the first author. The NC246 Multistate Hatch project from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the University of Tennessee provided support for insecticidal protein production."

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: 

"The  Alliance Bioversity-Ciat (The International Center for Tropical Agriculture) and the Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (Cenicaña) provided logistical and financial support to the first author. The NC246 Multistate Hatch project from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the University of Tennessee provided support for insecticidal protein production."

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

5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your patience during the review process. Three recommendations, two minor and one major revision, were received. Please provide detailed point-by-point responses to all reviewer comments.

[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: Yes

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: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: This is an interesting adaptation of a protocol to assess the susceptibility of sugarcane borers. If thoroughly explained, it can become a standard protocol for others to follow. Some of the necessary additions and clarifications are:

Line 103: ‘Corn cobs’ requires a full description of the maize cultivar, its agronomic management, the test to verify that the cultivar did not express any Bt proteins, when it was harvested and how, etc.

Lines 135-137: …24.1 μg/cm2 of Cry1Ac…was selected in assessing toxicity based on previously reported LC50 values for Cry1Ac from diet surface contamination bioassays with D. saccharalis and D. flavipennella. According to Lemes et al. [20], the LC50 for the latter is LC50 = 495ng∕cm2 Why the difference?

Lines 275-277: The lack of available artificial diets supporting larvae growth has prevented testing susceptibility to these insecticidal proteins in other relevant Diatraea species. According to the text before and after this statement, THERE IS artificial diet for D. saccharalis, and D. flavipennella. Perhaps a little bit of effort with successful artificial diets for these two pests can be adapted for the other two. To propose your protocol as a ‘standard’, a full description of the maize cultivar, its growth and other parameters need to be provided. Has this protocol tested with other cultivars and on different leaves?

Lines 297-298: …meaning that more than double of the protein is required for coating the tissue (i.e., 24.1 μg/cm2) and effectively expose the insects... I would be important to note that production of Cry1Ac is not easy, neither cheap. Of greater value could be the cost comparison between this method and the use of artificial diet.

In the conclusions section I could not find anything different of what was described in the abstract or complemented in the text. Is it necessary?

Minor comments.

Line 11: I believe it should be CIAT

Line 30: Because there is no described artificial diet and availability of most purified Bt toxins,…

Line 39: Remove species evaluated

Line 47 mentions: cause significant yield losses. Provide the range, rather than requiring the reader to search for references 3 and 4.

Lines 51 and 52: with production losses (Provide the range) depending on the crop stage and damage caused (Describe)

Line 56: infection by Coletotrichum falcatum, a fungus that resultsing

Line 58: …as a reduction in both total biomass production and sucrose content. Provide ranges.

Line 75: application Suggestions; alternative / option

Line 78: , or by direct observation of their efficacy in plants in the field (Dively et al. 2023 [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/14/7/577], and previous publications)

Line 97: Entomology Laboratory does not require capital letters. It is only ‘a room’.

Line 103: Fix F1

Lines 104-105: if the thickness of the cob has a variation of 20%, then the term ‘uniform’ disk is not correct. Just saying.

Line 126: on four Diatraea species, Diatraea. saccharalis

Lines 127-128: By the time maize is ready to provide corn discs 75 days after planting, a plant may have at least 12 leaves at different stages of development and thickness. Provide information on the precise development stage of maize using the ISU scale (https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/Corn-Growth-and-Development), and describe which maize leaf(ves) was used in the bioassays.

Line 133: was …water and detergent alone… only used in the control? If so, specify / justify why.

Line 141: Describe how Mmortality was scored 7 days after infestation

Lines 153-155: Is it necessary to describe this simple formula? The same one described in line 188.

Line 196: It is described that “The 16 wells within each of the eight replicates were considered subsamples” Is this a replication, made only once with one corn borer generation? Specify.

Line 225: “almost all larvae were stunted” requires precision.

Reviewer #2: The Ms. has shown interesting work however the following comments need to address in order to improve the understanding of the research.

1. In Introduction, Authors need to incorporate one paragraph about the previous diet formulations studied and what were the drawback of those systems.

2. Authors need to check the typographical errors i.e. Line no. 156 Metter Toledo AB204 must be Mettler Toledo AB204

3. Authors need to explain the except fresh corn tissue used in the present study whether it was leaf or cob or any other fresh part. Also explain the age of the fresh tissue, whether it can stored or not so that assay need to perform throughout the year.

4. In order to get consistent results, authors need to provide some proximate nutritional analysis of the fresh tissue used for bioassay.

5. Authors need to explain how the protein is absorbed and spreaded uniform to fresh tissue.

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-23-19646

“Development of a Bioassay Method to Test Activity of Cry Insecticidal Proteins Against

Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Sugarcane Stem Borers” by Ángel-Salazar et al.

This paper describes a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal protein bioassay method for sugarcane borers based on Bt overlay of corn leaf discs. This assay was stated as necessary due to lack of an artificial diet for D. saccharalis. Assays are restricted to use of a “diagnostic dose” determined from prior experiments on other Diatraea species.

Overall, the paper describes developmental as opposed to experimental work. Specifically the work done covers documentation of larval performance at a single insecticidal protein dose and other factors influencing assay reproducibility (e.g. fungal contamination). Experimental components such as determination of LC50 or LC99 concentrations in a dose-response bioassay experiments were not included, although this was stated in the Conclusions as likely future work. Thus, this developmental work might be better suited for a methods development type journal.

Additionally, assays were negatively influenced by fungal contamination which authors state as a significantly impacting results between species in the authors comparisons. This significant variation in contamination likely influences larval survival or performance, and should be addressed prior to publication of these methods. Surface sterilization of leaf discs by dipping in a dilute bleach solution (~2-3%) may lessen the amount of observed contamination in these assays.

Data for survivorship post-movement to non-Bt diet should be provided (e.g. proportional survivorship)

Specific comments:

Line 100 Please define "CRV":

Line 128 Please indicate: 1. What hybrid was used, 2. field or greenhouse grown 2. V-stage range of plants; can vary at d after planting depending on hybrid maturity date and growth conditions.

Line 137 “diet surface contamination bioassays with D. saccharalis”. Contamination seems out of place.

Line 144 “…wells, was used to set a species with the protein, while another tray had the control”. The portion “was used to set a species with the protein” is unclear.

Line 225: Would suggest using “growth inhibition” instead of “stunted”

Lines 243-246 states “These larvae did not survive more than a day (D. tabernella) or survived

up to four days (D. indigenella) after the 7-days exposure to treatment, when they were

then moved to a control diet; in addition, larvae did not show growth or molting during this

period.”, but this is not described in the Methods. Similarly for line 248.

Lines 261-263 describes a significant effect of contamination. Granted, one would suspect that the Cry1Ac protien in this material would have a greater effect on mortality, but could this difference mortality compared to control also be influenced by corresponding differences in fungal contamination? Could this difference in fungal contamination also contribute to a portion of the differences in other metrics? There should be a way to tease out contribution of these two by determining effects of fungal contamination alone. A suggestion would be to surface sterilize plant leaves using a dilute bleach solution (2-3%) to reduce contamination rates.

Line 286 What is meant by "reproducible mortality"? Low variation between replicates or consistency with prior experiments on artificial diet? The latter can be assumed. Consider changeing "high(ly) reproducible mortality" with "high mortality'.

Line 304-305 “subsequent larval death could increase the likelihood of observing fungal contamination”. Are authors suggesting that fungus may be feeding on the cadavers? Could init be equally likely that the fungus is contributing to larval mortality?

Lines 319-320 “all surviving larvae presented stunting after Cry1Ac treatment for all species and died shortly after concluding the bioassay”. The methods for this need to be described and the data shown at least in a Supplementary table, or provide mean number of days survived post 7 d exposure.

Line 330 Change “Control” to “control”

Line 331 Do authors mean “dose-response bioassays”?

**********

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: Carlos A. Blanco

Reviewer #2: Yes: Devendra Jain

Reviewer #3: 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-23-19646_Reviewer1.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 18;18(10):e0292992. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292992.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Sep 2023

Reviewer #1:

This is an interesting adaptation of a protocol to assess the susceptibility of sugarcane borers. If thoroughly explained, it can become a standard protocol for others to follow. Some of the necessary additions and clarifications are:

Line 103: ‘Corn cobs’ requires a full description of the maize cultivar, its agronomic management, the test to verify that the cultivar did not express any Bt proteins, when it was harvested and how, etc.

R/ In Lines 119-127 we have indicated “The maize cultivar SV 1035 was grown conventionally (mineral fertilization with NPK and manual weed control), but without using insecticides, while ensuring it was situated 2 kilometers away from other commercial corn crops. This strategic separation aimed to prevent any potential cross-contamination. The harvesting process was done manually at 70 days of the crop cycle. Coincidentally, this same source of corn was also employed as a substrate to sustain the various Diatraea species stock colonies at the Cenicaña entomology laboratory. To confirm the absence of any expression of Bt proteins, we conducted regular assessments of survival within the stock colonies.”

Lines 135-137: …24.1 μg/cm2 of Cry1Ac…was selected in assessing toxicity based on previously reported LC50 values for Cry1Ac from diet surface contamination bioassays with D. saccharalis and D. flavipennella. According to Lemes et al. [20], the LC50 for the latter is LC50 = 495ng∕cm2 Why the difference?

R/ Lemes et al. [21] reported that Cry1Ac exhibited the highest toxicity towards D. flavipennella and E. lignosellus, with LC50 values of 8.6 and 15.6 ng/cm2, respectively. Based on this information, we anticipated that employing an application rate greater than that used on D. flavipennella would result in increased mortality in our different Diatraea species in this new proposed protocol. The latter was also developed on several trial-and-error observations trying to adjust an efficacious rate on this fresh tissue.

Lines 275-277: The lack of available artificial diets supporting larvae growth has prevented testing susceptibility to these insecticidal proteins in other relevant Diatraea species. According to the text before and after this statement, THERE IS artificial diet for D. saccharalis, and D. flavipennella. Perhaps a little bit of effort with successful artificial diets for these two pests can be adapted for the other two. To propose your protocol as a ‘standard’, a full description of the maize cultivar, its growth and other parameters need to be provided. Has this protocol tested with other cultivars and on different leaves?

R/ We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the ‘relative’ effort required to develop an artificial diet for the additional three Diatraea species, namely busckella, indigenella and tabernella. We believe that investing additional effort will yield appropriate diets for these species. However, a potential challenge arises from the necessity of utilizing distinct diets for each species, which could complicate the comparability of our trials. This complexity implies that even if we were to have access to these diets, evaluating and contrasting the survival rates of different species fed on disparate diets might hinder the straightforward comparisons achieved in our analysis.

In presenting our protocol as a new ‘standard’, we are providing a full description of the maize cultivar’s management (Lines 119-124). Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that while we propose this protocol as a robust framework, its applicability has not been tested with alternate cultivars or utilizing different plant tissues than those delineated in our description.

Lines 297-298: …meaning that more than double of the protein is required for coating the tissue (i.e., 24.1 μg/cm2) and effectively expose the insects... I would be important to note that production of Cry1Ac is not easy, neither cheap. Of greater value could be the cost comparison between this method and the use of artificial diet.

R/ We acknowledge the reviewer’s consideration of the costs associated with our proposed protocol. Beyond underscoring the significance of acquiring knowledge concerning the varied response of Diatraea species to Cry proteins before embarking on any transformation endeavors, we have indicated in Lines 377-380, that “Given the challenges and expenses associated with producing Cry1Ac, ensuring a streamlined and cost-effective screening process would necessitate dedicated efforts towards formulating an artificial diet that sufficiently supports the development of different Diatraea species.”

In the conclusions section I could not find anything different of what was described in the abstract or complemented in the text. Is it necessary?

R/ As per your comments on the cost aspects of our protocol, an extra statement has been added in Lines 416-419, indicating: “… However, considering the challenges and expenses involved in Cry1Ac production, establishing an efficient and economical screening procedure would require focused endeavors in formulating an artificial diet that adequately nurtures the growth of various Diatraea species.”

Minor comments.

Line 11: I believe it should be CIAT

R/ Done

Line 30: Because there is no described artificial diet and availability of most purified Bt toxins,…

R/ Text has modified in lines 31-33: “Because there is no described artificial diet for borer species other than D. saccharalis and availability of most purified Bt toxins is restricted, this study aimed at …”

Line 39: Remove species evaluated

R/ We removed the word ‘evaluated’

Line 47 mentions: cause significant yield losses. Provide the range, rather than requiring the reader to search for references 3 and 4.

R/ A range of losses has been indicated in Lines 48-49: “… ranging from 100 to 140 kilograms of sucrose per hectare, and per each percent of bored internodes.”

Lines 51 and 52: with production losses (Provide the range) depending on the crop stage and damage caused (Describe)

R/ In the following lines (from Line 54) we describe the damage and now we have incorporated the ranges of crop losses. See Lines 58, 60-63.

Line 56: infection by Coletotrichum falcatum, a fungus that resultsing

R/ Done

Line 58: …as a reduction in both total biomass production and sucrose content. Provide ranges.

R/ Done. See Lines 60-63.

Line 75: application Suggestions; alternative / option

R/ Done. Now in Line 80 we included ‘alternative.’

Line 78: , or by direct observation of their efficacy in plants in the field (Dively et al. 2023 [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/14/7/577], and previous publications)

R/ New ref and comment have been included in Lines 83-84.

Line 97: Entomology Laboratory does not require capital letters. It is only ‘a room’.

R/ Done.

Line 103: Fix F1

R/ In the text we have changed the term to: “first generation individuals …” (Line 116)

Lines 104-105: if the thickness of the cob has a variation of 20%, then the term ‘uniform’ disk is not correct. Just saying.

R/ We have excluded the term ‘uniform’

Line 126: on four Diatraea species, Diatraea. Saccharalis

R/ The genus and species descriptor are now included in Line 86

Lines 127-128: By the time maize is ready to provide corn discs 75 days after planting, a plant may have at least 12 leaves at different stages of development and thickness. Provide information on the precise development stage of maize using the ISU scale (https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/Corn-Growth-and-Development), and describe which maize leaf(ves) was used in the bioassays.

R/ Indication has been made in Line 149-150 that we used cob corn discs, when kernels were at the milk stage (R3). No corn leaves were used in our trials.

Line 133: was …water and detergent alone… only used in the control? If so, specify / justify why.

R/ To account for any effects of moisturizing the cob corn discs with water and detergent (Triton-X 100), control larvae were exposed to discs treated with water and detergent. This is now indicated in Lines 159-161.

Line 141: Describe how Mmortality was scored 7 days after infestation

R/ Now in Line 173 it reads: “… after infestation, by assessing any level of activity on treated larvae.”

Lines 153-155: Is it necessary to describe this simple formula? The same one described in line 188.

R/ We consider important to describe these simple formulas, so the reader can easily understand and reproduce the variables described.

Line 196: It is described that “The 16 wells within each of the eight replicates were considered subsamples” Is this a replication, made only once with one corn borer generation? Specify.

R/ Now in Lines 232-233 we specify that “Each combination of Diatraea species and the protein was made performed once using a single borer generation.”

Line 225: “almost all larvae were stunted” requires precision.

R/ An addition on the text has been made on Line 268, indicating that: “Among D. busckella larvae treated with the protein, only six reached the second instar, while control treatments exhibited 89.3% and 90.5% more larvae in the second and third instar, respectively. Similarly, in the same species, 95% more larvae progressed to the second and third instar in control treatments compared to those treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. For D. indigenella, control treatments showed 68% and 88% more larvae advancing to the second and third instar, respectively compared to those individuals treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. In D. saccharalis, control treatments showed between 93% and 91% more larvae reaching second and third instar, respectively in contrast to those treated with the protein and observed in the first instar. Likewise, in D. tabernella, control treatments exhibited between 96% and 93% more larvae moving between the second and third instar, respectively, compared to the individuals treated with the protein and observed in the first instar (Fig 3).”

Reviewer #2:

The Ms. has shown interesting work however the following comments need to address in order to improve the understanding of the research.

1. In Introduction, Authors need to incorporate one paragraph about the previous diet formulations studied and what were the drawback of those systems.

R/We have dedicated an additional paragraph on relation to the issue of the available diets. Now in Lines 93-100 it reads like this: “Additional research is warranted in relation to the development of an artificial diet for the additional Diatraea species (i.e., D. busckella, D. indigenella and D. tabernella). Investing additional effort will yield appropriate diets for these species. However, a potential challenge arises from the necessity of utilizing distinct diets for each species, which could complicate the comparability of survival and biological responses in trials where comparisons among different species are required. Performing experiments using a species-specific diet, would increase the variation in the set-up, hindering this was straightforward comparisons among Diatraea species.

2. Authors need to check the typographical errors i.e. Line no. 156 Metter Toledo AB204 must be Mettler Toledo AB204

R/ Done.

3. Authors need to explain the except fresh corn tissue used in the present study whether it was leaf or cob or any other fresh part. Also explain the age of the fresh tissue, whether it can stored or not so that assay need to perform throughout the year.

R/ In line 149 it is now indicated that we used cob corn discs 70–75 days after planting, when kernels were at the Milk stage (R3). Also in Line 154, we indicated that non-peeled cob corns were stored for nor more than 1 week at 8°C.

4. In order to get consistent results, authors need to provide some proximate nutritional analysis of the fresh tissue used for bioassay.

R/ As we have indicated before we used cob corn discs at the milk stage (R3). In addition, we are now indicating in Lines 151-153 that: “In general, the corn kernel at the milk stage is on the cusp of maturity, yet it remains soft and brimming with a milky fluid. This fluid is rich in carbohydrates, mainly in the form of sugars. At the start of the R3 stage, approximately 80% of its content comprises water.”

5. Authors need to explain how the protein is absorbed and spreaded uniform to fresh tissue.

R/ In Lines 168-170 it has been indicated that “… the volume of 60 µl was uniformly applied onto the corn tissue using a 100 µl Eppendorf pipette. The tray was then balanced after each application to facilitate protein dispersion and absorption within the tissue.”

Reviewer #3: PONE-D-23-19646

“Development of a Bioassay Method to Test Activity of Cry Insecticidal Proteins Against

Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Sugarcane Stem Borers” by Ángel-Salazar et al.

This paper describes a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal protein bioassay method for sugarcane borers based on Bt overlay of corn leaf discs. This assay was stated as necessary due to lack of an artificial diet for D. saccharalis. Assays are restricted to use of a “diagnostic dose” determined from prior experiments on other Diatraea species.

R/ In line 149 we are indicating that we used cob corn discs instead of leaf discs.

Overall, the paper describes developmental as opposed to experimental work. Specifically the work done covers documentation of larval performance at a single insecticidal protein dose and other factors influencing assay reproducibility (e.g. fungal contamination). Experimental components such as determination of LC50 or LC99 concentrations in a dose-response bioassay experiments were not included, although this was stated in the Conclusions as likely future work. Thus, this developmental work might be better suited for a methods development type journal.

R/ We acknowledge the reviewer’s perspective, yet we maintain that our manuscript focuses primarily on introducing a novel method. This emphasis aligns with the journal’s publication scope for research articles, supported by the criteria of utility (providing an alternative to the challenges of testing proteins on various Diatraea species), validation (demonstrating the toxicity of the purified protein across four different Diatraea species using fresh tissue as a proof-of-principle), and availability, as we offer a comprehensive description of the materials and methods, ensuring reproducibility in any laboratory.

Additionally, assays were negatively influenced by fungal contamination which authors state as a significantly impacting results between species in the authors comparisons. This significant variation in contamination likely influences larval survival or performance, and should be addressed prior to publication of these methods. Surface sterilization of leaf discs by dipping in a dilute bleach solution (~2-3%) may lessen the amount of observed contamination in these assays.

R/ we agree with the reviewer that “sanitation of the work area and careful operations are fundamental to reducing the potential for contamination of the corn substrate during the bioassays, thus helping to obtain consistent results” (Lines 408-410). However, we also indicated that “the bioassay is based on the technical criteria recommended for protocols using artificial diets, such as maintaining control treatment mortality below 10%” (Lines 406-408). Therefore, contamination was not significantly impacting survival as we “did not detect a correlation between treatment, mortality, and fungal contamination” (Lines 387-388).

Data for survivorship post-movement to non-Bt diet should be provided (e.g. proportional survivorship)

R/ Percent survival after the seven days exposure to the protein is now indicated for D. saccharalis in Line 301, for D. tabernella and D. indigenella in Line 307, respectively; and for D. busckella in Line 313. Is it noteworthy that no larvae survived longer than 4 days after the exposure to the protein and the post-movement to a non-Bt diet.

Specific comments:

Line 100 Please define "CRV":

R/ CRV is defined in Line 69

Line 128 Please indicate: 1. What hybrid was used, 2. field or greenhouse grown 2. V-stage range of plants; can vary at d after planting depending on hybrid maturity date and growth conditions.

R/ In Line 119 we are indicating that we used the hybrid SV 1035, under field conditions (Line 121), while harvest of the corn cobs was done when kernels were at the Milk stage (Line 150).

Line 137 “diet surface contamination bioassays with D. saccharalis”. Contamination seems out of place.

R/ the term ‘contamination’ has been eliminated in Line 165.

Line 144 “…wells, was used to set a species with the protein, while another tray had the control”. The portion “was used to set a species with the protein” is unclear.

R/ In lines 178-180, the text has been modified for clarity: “Each combination of Diatraea species and the protein were evaluated separately using a tray containing 16 wells. Simultaneously, a separate tray was designated as the control, at it contained water and detergent.”

Line 225: Would suggest using “growth inhibition” instead of “stunted”

R/ In line 267 the term “growth inhibition” replaced “stunted.”

Lines 243-246 states “These larvae did not survive more than a day (D. tabernella) or survived up to four days (D. indigenella) after the 7-days exposure to treatment, when they were then moved to a control diet; in addition, larvae did not show growth or molting during this period.”, but this is not described in the Methods. Similarly for line 248.

R/ In Materials and methods (Lines 174-176) it has been indicated that: “Larvae that survived the protein treatment were subsequently transferred to a control diet (corn cob discs treated with water and detergent) to observe further development.”

Lines 261-263 describes a significant effect of contamination. Granted, one would suspect that the Cry1Ac protien in this material would have a greater effect on mortality, but could this difference mortality compared to control also be influenced by corresponding differences in fungal contamination? Could this difference in fungal contamination also contribute to a portion of the differences in other metrics? There should be a way to tease out contribution of these two by determining effects of fungal contamination alone. A suggestion would be to surface sterilize plant leaves using a dilute bleach solution (2-3%) to reduce contamination rates.

R/ we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding contamination. In our discussion, we indicate that “… treatment with Cry1Ac and subsequent larval death could increase the likelihood of observing fungal contamination …” (Lines 386-387), while we considered that the effect of contamination on mortality was not significant as no correlation was found between mortality and contamination. The latter is evident in Fig 5, where fungal contamination reached as high as 30% in both treated and non-treated D. tabernella larvae, resulting in mortalities of 4.7% and 97.7% for control larvae and treated larvae, respectively. While we appreciate the suggestion of using a diluted bleach solution, it is important to note that we employed corn cob discs as the corn tissue substrate. Consequently, we opted to avoid introducing any substance that could be absorbed by the tissue and potentially impact larval survival.

Line 286 What is meant by "reproducible mortality"? Low variation between replicates or consistency with prior experiments on artificial diet? The latter can be assumed. Consider changeing "high(ly) reproducible mortality" with "high mortality'.

R/ the term ‘high reproducible mortality’ was replaced by ‘high mortality’ (Now in Line 366).

Line 304-305 “subsequent larval death could increase the likelihood of observing fungal contamination”. Are authors suggesting that fungus may be feeding on the cadavers? Could init be equally likely that the fungus is contributing to larval mortality?

R/ We addressed the issue of contamination and mortality in a previous comment.

Lines 319-320 “all surviving larvae presented stunting after Cry1Ac treatment for all species and died shortly after concluding the bioassay”. The methods for this need to be described and the data shown at least in a Supplementary table, or provide mean number of days survived post 7 d exposure.

R/ In Lines 173-175 it is now has indicated the way surviving larvae were observed. In addition, a description of the number of individuals surviving after the protein exposure is indicated in Lines 299-311, where additionally a weighted mean number of days survived post 7-day treatment in now indicated in Line 315.

Line 330 Change “Control” to “control”

R/ Done

Line 331 Do authors mean “dose-response bioassays”?

R/ Now in Line 413, the term ‘dose-response bioassays’ is indicated.

Decision Letter 1

Omaththage P Perera

4 Oct 2023

Development of a Bioassay Method to Test Activity of Cry Insecticidal Proteins Against Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Sugarcane Stem Borers

PONE-D-23-19646R1

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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,

Omaththage P. Perera, Ph.D., FRES

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: None really, good work. Nothing else to add at the moment but the system requires certain characters to be entered.

Reviewer #2: The Ms. was revisited after addressing all the comment from suggested and improved substantially and may be accepted for publication.

**********

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: Carlos A. Blanco

Reviewer #2: Yes: Devendra Jain

**********

Acceptance letter

Omaththage P Perera

10 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-19646R1

Development of a Bioassay Method to Test Activity of Cry Insecticidal Proteins Against Diatraea spp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Sugarcane Stem Borers

Dear Dr. Vargas:

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. Omaththage P. Perera

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 Data

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE D-23-19646_Reviewer1.pdf

    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