Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0299298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299298

Describe the morphology and mitochondrial genome of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic position

Chao Chen 1, Dongmei Bai 1, Zhenhua Zhang 1, Xiaofei Ding 1, Shuzhen Yang 1, Qing Zhao 1,*, Hufang Zhang 2,*
Editor: Pankaj Bhardwaj3
PMCID: PMC10977800  PMID: 38547075

Abstract

We here describe the external morphology and complete mitochondrial genome characteristics of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851, and clarify the evolutionary rate and divergence time. The M. indica mitochondrial genome length is 15,670 bp, and it exhibits a typical high A+T-skew (76.31%). The sequence shows strong synteny with the original gene arrangement of Drosophila yakuba Burla, 1954 without rearrangement. The M. indica mitochondrial genome characteristics were analyzed, and phylogenetic trees of Pentatomidae were reconstructed using Bayesian methods based on different datasets of the mitochondrial genome datasets. Phylogenetic analysis shows that M. indica belongs to Pentaotominae and form a sister-group with Anaxilaus musgravei Gross, 1976, and Asopinae is highly supported as monophyletic. Molecular clock analysis estimates a divergence time of Pentatomidae of 122.75 Mya (95% HPD: 98.76–145.43 Mya), within the Mesozoic Cretaceous; the divergence time of M. indica and A. musgravii was no later than 50.50 Mya (95% HPD: 37.20–64.80 Mya). In addition, the divergence time of Asopinae was 62.32 Mya (95% HPD: 47.08–78.23 Mya), which was in the Paleogene of the Cenozoic era. This study is of great significance for reconstructing the phylogeny of Pentatomidae and providing insights into its evolutionary history.

Introduction

Pentatomidae is the largest group of species in the superfamily Pentatomoidea and is widely distributed worldwide. Currently, approximately 5000 species and more than 900 genera have been recorded [1, 2]. Most species of Pentatomidae are herbivorous, and many species are considered to be primary crop pests worldwide, causing huge losses every year [2]. Phytophagous species feed on the liquid flowing in the vegetative organs of the host plant through their piercing-sucking mouthparts, causing plants to wither and/or die. They are important agricultural and forestry pests [3]. For example, Nezara viridula (Linnaeus, 1758) damages rice; Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) damages apples, pears, and other fruit trees; and species of the genus Eurydema Laporte, 1833 damages cruciferous vegetables. However, most species of Asopinae (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) are predatory stink bugs that feed on the larvae of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera and can be used for biological control [46].

The genus Mecidea (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) comprises a group of stink bugs that occur in subtropical and adjacent temperate parts of the world. Within these regions, the distribution of the genus appears to coincide closely with that of xerophytic or semi-xerophytic environments [7]. This coincidence was established by Dallas in 1851 for two species, indica (Bengal) and linearis. Mecidea indica is a member of this genus. Sailer reviewed the genus Mecidea in 1952, including M. indica, and provided species literature, identification keys, descriptions and figures [7]. Hsiao et al. (1977) [8] recorded this species in China, and provided habitus photographs and brief descriptions. Rider and Zheng (2002) [9] updated the distribution of this species in China. Rider (2006) [10] provided the most recent worldwide distribution information on this species. The latest literature on M. indica was provided by Fan (2011) [11], who produced a description that lacked genitalia information.

A typical insect mitochondrial genome is a double stranded covalently closed circular DNA molecule, including 37 genes (13 protein coding genes (PCGs), 22 transport RNA genes (tRNAs), and two ribosomal RNA genes (rRNAs)) and a control region [12, 13]. Mitochondrial genomes are widely used in molecular evolution, population genetic structure, biogeography studies, and phylogenetic analysis, due to their small size, stable genetic composition, relatively conservative gene sequence, and complete molecular information [1417].

Current classification of the tribes and subfamilies of Pentatomidae is based on traditional taxonomic studies. Rider et al. (2018) [2] described each tribe and subfamily of Pentatomidae based on their morphology, providing a good framework for phylogenetic analysis. In recent years, increasing amounts of molecular data on pentatomid species have become available, but most of the studies to date focused on the high-level hierarchical relationships, such as Pentatomoidea or Pentatomomorpha. For example, Yuan et al. (2015) [18] constructed the phylogenetic tree based on a 13 PCGs dataset, which strongly supported the monophyly of Pentatomoidea. Mu et al. (2022) [19] supported this result. Xu et al. (2021) [20] constructed a phylogenetic tree based on PCGRNA and PCG12RNA datasets using 55 species of Pentatomoidea, and resulted that site-heterogeneous mixture models can provide a more stable phylogenetic relationship. Grazia et al. (2008) [21] supported the monophyly of Pentatomidae based on morphological and molecular characteristics, and Zhao (2017) [22] supported this result. In a recent study, Genevcius et al. (2021) [23] used 69 morphological characteristics and five DNA loci to study the phylogeny of Pentatomidae, and reported that most subfamilies and tribes included in Pentatomidae were not monophyletic. Roca-Cusachs et al. (2022) [24] simultaneously rejected the currently accepted monophyletic nature of Pentatomidae. Owing to a lack of robust phylogenetic methods and incomplete sampling, the internal relationships of Pentatomidae remain largely unknown.

We used phylogenetic and molecular clock analyses to explain the origin and evolution of Pentatomidae. Previously, Li et al. (2017) [25] analyzed phylogeny, reconstructed the ancestral characteristic state, and estimated divergence time, indicating that insect diversity may be largely due to coevolution with angiosperms, and key adaptive innovations (such as prognathous mouthpart and predatory behavior) facilitated multiple independent shifts among diverse feeding habits. This study provides a good reference for determining the origin of Pentatomidae. However, no studies have systematically evaluated the divergence time of Pentatomidae; therefore it is particularly important to study the evolution of Pentatomidae by combining fossil data with molecular characteristics.

In this study, we provide a description of the morphological characteristics of M. indica, publish a complete mitochondrial genome obtained by high-throughput sequencing, and describe our detailed analyses of mitochondrial genome characteristics. By analyzing codon preference, RNA secondary structure, and evolution rates among Pentatomidae species, we can clarify internal relationships among Pentatomidae. In addition, our results from constructing phylogenetic trees of Pentatomidae and evaluating divergence time will help in understanding Pentatomidae evolution.

Materials and methods

Descriptions and measurements

Male genitalia were observed and illustrated after treatment with warm 5% NaOH solution for approximately 20 min. Female genitalia were only illustrated externally. Photographs of both dorsal and ventral habitus were taken using a Nikon SMZ1000 microscope equipped with a computer-controlled SPOT RT digital camera and Helicon software. The terminology used to describe the external genitalia follows that of Fan et al. (2011) [11]. All measurements were performed in millimeters.

Body length was measured from the apex of the head to the tips of the membrane of the hemelytra. Head width was measured between the eyes, and head length was measured from the tip of the head to the midpoint of the anterior margin of the pronotum. Pronotum length was measured from the midpoint of the anterior margin to the midpoint of the posterior margin, and width was measured across the greatest width of the pronotum. Scutellum length was measured from the midpoint of the anterior margin of the scutellum to the apex, and width was measured across the basal angles.

Sample collection and DNA extraction

Adult M. indica specimens were collected from Xiaochantan Wharf (109°10′ E, 19°43′ N), Yangpu Port, Danzhou City, Hainan Province, China, on December 22, 2020. The species we used for scientific purposes is not protected animals and meet animal ethical requirements. It is ethical, humane and responsible. All specimens were immediately placed in absolute ethanol and stored in a freezer at -20°C until DNA extraction. Total DNA was extracted from thoracic tissue using a Genomic DNA Extraction Kit (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China).

Sequencing, assembly, annotation and sequence analyses

A fluorescent dye Quant it PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit was used to determine the total amount of DNA. The total amount of DNA was 2.39 μg, and concentration by fluorescence was 47.80 ng/μl. After quality inspection, the required genomic library was constructed using the standard Illumina TruSeq Nano DNA LT library preparation process (Illumina TruSeq DNA Sample Preparation Guide). The mitochondrial genome of M. indica was sequenced on an Illumina Novaseq 6000 Platform, using the sequencing mode was paired-end 2 × 150 bp. Fastp v 0.23.1 [26] software was used to filter the original data to obtain high-quality clean data. Geneious v. 11.0 [27] software was used to assemble and annotate the sequences. Reference sequence (Plautia lushanica Yang, 1934, NC_058973) [20] for assembly and annotation was obtained from the NCBI databases. The PCGs were edited manually using the open reading frame finder (ORF) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gorf/gorf.html) with the invertebrate mitochondrial code. The locations of each protein-coding gene’s initiation and stop codons were determined by comparison with homologous genes from other insects. MITOS Web (http://mitos.bioinf.uni-leipzig.de/) [28] was used to predict the locations and secondary structures of the 22 tRNAs. The boundaries of the two rRNAs genes were determined by comparison with those of previously reported mitogenomes. The location of the control region was identified by the boundaries of the neighboring genes.

A circular map of the M. indica mitochondrial genome was produced using the CGView Server [29]. Codon usage and nucleotide composition of the PCGs were determined by MEGA v.11.0 [30], and the skew in nucleotide composition was calculated by the following formula: AT-skew = (A − T) / (A + T); GC-skew = (G − C) / (G + C) [31]. Codon W1.4.2 [32] was used to calculate the effective number of codons (ENCs) in the 13 PCGs observed in 50 Pentatomidae species. To study the pattern of evolutionary divergence among the mitochondrial genomes of Pentatomidae species, DnaSP v.6.12.03 [33] was used to count non-synonymous substitutions (Ka) and synonymous substitutions (Ks) in the 13 PCGs of Pentatominae and to calculate Ka/Ks values. In addition, MEGA v.11.0 was used to calculate the conservative sites of tRNA and rRNA genes, and tandem repeats within the control region were identified using the Tandem Repeats Finder server (http://tandem.bu.edu/trf/trf.html) [34].

Phylogenetic analyses

We selected 50 Pentatomidae species as ingroups (including all available Pentatomidae sequences) and two Scutelleridae species as outgroups to discuss the phylogenetic relationships among the tribes within the family Pentatomidae (Table 1). Phylogenetic relationships were reconstructed based on two datasets: (1) 13 PCGs (2) 13 PCGs + 2 rRNAs + 22 tRNAs (PRT).

Table 1. List of species used to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships within Pentatomidae.

Family Subfamily Tribe Species GenBank number Reference
Pentatomidae Pentatominae Antestiini Anaxilaus musgravei NC_061538 Unpublished
Sephelini Brachymna tenuis NC_042802 [48]
Eysarcorini Carbula sinica NC_037741 [49]
Catacanthini Catacanthus incarnatus NC_042804 [48]
Caystrini Caystrus obscurus NC_042805 [48]
Halyini Dalpada cinctipes NC_058967 [20]
Carpocorini Dolycoris baccarum NC_020373 [50]
Halyini Erthesina fullo NC_042202 [51]
Strachiini Eurydema dominulus NC_044762 [52]
Strachiini Eurydema gebleri NC_027489 [18]
Strachiini Eurydema liturifera NC_044763 [52]
Strachiini Eurydema maracandica NC_037042 [22]
Strachiini Eurydema oleracea NC_044764 [52]
Strachiini Eurydema qinlingensis NC_044765 [52]
Strachiini Eurydema ventralis MG584837 [52]
Eysarcorini Eysarcoris aeneus MK841489 [53]
Eysarcorini Eysarcoris annamita MW852483 [53]
Eysarcorini Eysarcoris guttigerus NC_047222 [54]
Eysarcorini Eysarcoris montivagus MW846867 [53]
Eysarcorini Eysarcoris rosaceus MT165687 [53]
Nezarini Glaucias dorsalis NC_058968 [20]
Cappaeini Halyomorpha halys NC_013272 [55]
Caystrini Hippotiscus dorsalis NC_058969 [20]
Hoplistoderini Hoplistodera incisa NC_042799 [48]
Mecideini Mecidea indica OR654110 This study
Menidini Menida violacea NC_042818 [48]
Pentatomini Neojurtina typica NC_058971 [20]
Nezarini Nezara viridula NC_011755 [56]
Nezarini Palomena viridissima NC_050166 [57]
Pentatomini Pentatoma metallifera NC_058972 [20]
Pentatomini Pentatoma rufipes MT861131 [58]
Pentatomini Pentatoma semiannulata NC_053653 [59]
Pentatomini Placosternum urus NC_042812 [48]
Antestiini Plautia crossota NC_057080 [60]
Antestiini Plautia fimbriata NC_042813 [48]
Antestiini Plautia lushanica NC_058973 [20]
Eysarcorini Stagonomus gibbosus MW846868 [53]
Myrocheini Tholosanus proximus NC_063300 Unpublished
Phyllocephalinae Phyllocephalini Dalsira scabrata NC_037374 [49]
Phyllocephalini Gonopsis affinis NC_036745 [61]
Podopinae Deroploini Deroploa parva NC_063299 Unpublished
Graphosomatini Graphosoma rubrolineatum NC_033875 Unpublished
Podopini Scotinophara lurida NC_042815 [48]
Asopinae Arma custos NC_051562 [62]
Cazira horvathi NC_042817 [48]
Dinorhynchus dybowskyi NC_037724 [69]
Eocanthecona thomsoni NC_042816 [48]
Picromerus griseus NC_036418 [63]
Picromerus lewisi NC_058610 [19]
Zicrona caerulea NC_058303 [64]
Scutelleridae Scutellerinae Scutellerini Cantao ocellatus NC_042803 [48]
Scutellerini Chrysocoris stollii NC_051942 Unpublished

The PCGs and RNA genes were extracted using Geneious v.11.0, and MEGA v.11.0 was used to align multiple protein and RNA coding genes sequences. The connection of multiple sequences for each species was achieved using Sequence Matrix v.1.7.8 [35]. Gblocks [36] was used to delete ambiguous sites.

Before constructing a phylogenetic tree, base substitution saturation and sequence composition heterogeneity analyses were performed on both datasets. DAMBE v.7.0.35 software [37] was used to calculate the base substitution saturation index. If Iss < Iss. c indicates that the dataset can be used for phylogenetic analysis. Heterogeneity analysis was performed using AliGROOVE v.1.0.8 [38]. Datasets with less heterogeneity were suitable for phylogenetic analysis.

PartitionFinder v.2.1.1 [39] was used to partition models, and alternative models were calculated for each dataset (S1 and S2 Tables). Based on these two datasets, the Bayesian method (BI) was used to reconstruct Pentatomidae phylogenetic trees. BI trees were constructed by MrBayes v.3.2.6 [40]. Two independent runs of 20 million generations were conducted for the matrix, sampling every 1000 generations with a burn-in of 25%. Finally, phylogenetic trees were visualized using the iTOL website (https://itol.embl.de/) [41].

Divergence time estimate

The relaxation clock lognormal model in BEAST v.1.8.4 [42] was used to estimate Pentatomidae divergence time based on the PCGs dataset. We set up a GTR+I+G partition model using the calibrated Yule model for the prior tree. The fossil information points of Pentatomidae and the genus Eurydema Laporte de Castelnau, 1833 [4345] were used for calibration. Tracer v.1.7.2 [46] was used to confirm the chain convergence. The Markov chain was run twice for every 5×108 generations, sampling every 1000 generations with a burn-in of 25%. The valid sample size for most parameters was greater than 200. Sample trees were aggregated using Tree Annotator v.1.1.8.4, and then 95% highest probability density (95% HPD) was displayed in Figtree v1.4.3 [47].

Results

Redescription of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851

The body is long and narrow, and dorsum is yellow-white or yellow-brown, mottled with irregular fine dark spots. The venter is yellow-white, with two black longitudinal bands on each lateral side. Light brown punctures are observed on the head and thorax, and punctures are absent or shallow on the abdomen (Fig 1).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Habitus photographs of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (A. Dorsal view; B. Ventral view).

The head is triangular, somewhat pointed anteriorly, the juga is longer than the tylus, convergent in front, with straight lateral margin. The eyes are large and prominent, orange, globose, with ocelli located at the posterior margin. Antennae are five-segmented, the first segment is white-yellowish, and does not extend beyond the end of the head; the second segment is extremely long and stout, about twice the length of the third segment, and has three edges, one of which is slightly flattened outward; the remaining segments are cylindrical. The anterior angle of the bucculae protrudes semi-circularly. Its outer margin is relatively straight, and the posterior angle gradually disappears, not exceeding the posterior edge of the eye. The rostrum extends between the mesocoxae and the metacoxae; its first segment does not exceed past the bucculae; the second segment is longer than the two apical segments.

The pronotum is more than three times as long as its wide, its dorsal surface is comparatively flat and coarsely punctured, except for the callus. Humeral angles are round and slightly prominent; anterior angles are short, pointed, and slightly protruding, with their apex flush with the outer margin of the compound eye. The anterior margin is concave, not wider than the distant between eyes, and the posterior margin is straight. The anterior lateral margin is slightly concave, and minutely serrated. The scutellum forms an extremely elongated triangle. Its apical third is yellowish-white, and its apex extends more than half the length of the abdomen. Its lateral margin is narrow with thin edges. The corium is dark, with deep black punctures. The exocorium is usually paler than the corium, yellowish-white, with membrane obviously beyond the abdominal end. A smooth and slightly raised central ridge is longitudinally situated and extends from the base of tylus to the apex of scutellum. The proepisternum is simple; midline of mesosternum is carinate; and the midline of the metasternum is broad with shallowly sulcates. The metathoracic scent gland ostiole extends nearly to the dorsoanterior angle of the pruinose area, its apex sharp. The femora are unarmed, tibiae sulcate, and tarsi 3- segmented, with segment one equivalent to the length of segment two and three. The base half of the claw is yellowish-white, and the apical half is brown.

The abdomen with very shallow or without punctures, two black longitudinal belts are observed on the lateral side. The base of sternite III lacks tubercle. The connexivum are not exposed, and each segment has a black spot around the stoma.

Male genitalia. The pygophore is cup-like, and its width is greater than length, and densely covered with long hair. The posterolateral angles are horned and black; dorsoposterior rim concave and sinuate; and ventroposterior rim have a deep cup-like concave in the middle, with a sharp angle (Fig 2A and 2B). The paramere is simple without any branch, and apex with an elongated black spot (Fig 2C). Aedeagus is simple with one pair of basolateral conjunctival lobes, which apices are not bifurcate but slightly sclerotized, ventral and apical conjunctival lobes haven’t been seen; median penial plates strongly sclerotized, united at the base, and distinctly concave apically; vesica protrudes from venter of the median penial plates (Fig 2D).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A-B. Pygophore (A. Dorsal view; B. Ventral view) (1 dorsoposterior rim; 2 ventroposterior rim; 3 lateroposterior angle). C. Paramere (lateral view). D. Aedeagus (4 median penial plates; 5 basolateral conjunctival lobe). E. Female external genitalia (6 first gonocoxite; 7 eighth paratergite; 8 ninth paratergite).

Female genitalia: The first gonocoxites are large and plate-like, with their inner margins arched and clearly separated. The eighth paratergites are long and oval, with long hair at the apices. The ninth paratergites are also long and oval, with their apices much longer than those of the eighth (Fig 2E).

Material examined. CHINA, Hainan Province: 23 female17 male, Xiaozhaotan Wharf, Yangpu Port, Danzhou City, 22th. XII. 2020, Yuchun Han and RuiMeng leg.

Female measurements: body length 9.8–11.0 mm, width 3.0–3.2 mm; antennal segment length 0.6–0.7: 1.8–2.0: 0.8–1.0:1.1–1.2:1.0; length of head 1.9–2.1 mm, width 1.6–1.8 mm; length of pronotum 1.6–1.8 mm, width 3.0–3.2 mm; length of scutellum 3.3–3.6 mm, width 1.8–2.0 mm.

Male measurements: body length 8.8–9.2 mm, width 2.8–3.0 mm; antennal segment length 0.5–0.7: 1.6–1.7: 0.9–1.1:1.0–1.2:0.9–1.0; length of head 1.8–1.9 mm, width 1.5–1.6 mm; length of pronotum 1.5–1.7 mm, width 2.8–3.0 mm; length of scutellum 3.0–3.2 mm, width 1.6–1.8 mm.

Distribution: China (Hainan, Yunnan, Sichuan); Pakistan; India.

Mitochondrial genomic structure

The M. indica mitochondrial genome is a double stranded circular DNA with a length of 15,670 bp (GenBank accession no. OR654110), containing 37 genes (13 PCGs, 22 tRNA genes, two rRNA genes), and a control region (Fig 3). The arrangement of the 37 genes is consistent with that of the typical insect Drosophila yakuba Burla, 1954, with no gene rearrangement. Fourteen genes are encoded on the N-strand, and 23 genes are encoded on the J-strand (Table 2). The nucleotide composition of the M. indica mitochondrial genome is: A (42.97%) >T (33.35%) >C (12.79%) > G (10.89%), AT (76.31%) > GC (23.69%), showing AT-skew and CG-skew (Table 3). The M. indica mitochondrial genome contains 15 gene spacers and six gene overlap regions. The gene spacers are 1–24 bp in length, with a total length of 99 bp. The lengths of the overlap regions are 1–8 bp, with a total length of 27 bp. The greatest gene overlap is observed between trnW and trnC.

Fig 3. Mitochondrial genome structure of M. indica.

Fig 3

Table 2. Organization of the mitochondrial genome of M. indica.

Feature Strand Position Length(bp) Initiation codon Stop codon Anticodon Intergenic nucleotide
trnI J 1–66 66 GAT -3
trnQ N 64–132 69 TTG 0
trnM J 133–198 66 CAT 0
nad2 J 199–1179 981 ATT TAA 7
trnW J 1187–1254 68 TCA -8
trnC N 1247–1310 64 GCA 6
trnY N 1317–1383 67 GTA 1
cox1 J 1385–2921 1537 TTG T 0
trnL2 J 2922–2988 67 TAA 0
cox2 J 2989–3667 679 ATA T 0
trnK J 3668–3739 72 CTT 0
trnD J 3740–3804 65 GTC 0
atp8 J 3805–3966 162 TTG TAA -7
atp6 J 3960–4634 675 ATG TAA 9
cox3 J 4644–5432 789 ATG TAA -1
trnG J 5432–5495 64 TCC 0
nad3 J 5496–5846 351 ATA TAA 0
trnA J 5847–5913 67 TGC 3
trnR J 5917–5980 64 TCG 10
trnN J 5991–6058 68 GTT -1
trnS1 J 6058–6126 69 GCT 0
trnE J 6127–6193 67 TTC 1
trnF N 6195–6260 66 GAA 4
nad5 N 6265–7974 1710 ATT TAA 1
trnH N 7976–8039 64 GTG 8
nad4 N 8048–9376 1329 ATG TAA -7
nad4l N 9370–9654 285 ATT TAA 2
trnT J 9657–9721 65 TGT 0
trnP N 9722–9785 64 TGG 10
nad6 J 9796–10,260 465 ATA TAA 2
cytb J 10,263–11,399 1137 ATG TAA 11
trnS2 J 11,411–11,479 69 TGA 24
nad1 N 11,504–12,424 921 TTG TAA 0
trnL1 N 12,425–12,489 65 TAG 0
rrnL N 12,490–13,757 1268 0
trnV N 13,758–13,825 68 TAC 0
rrnS N 13,826–14,624 799 0
CR J 14,625–15,670 1046 0

Table 3. Nucleotide composition and skewness of the mitochondrial genome of M. indica.

Region A% T% C% G% A+T% G+C% AT skew GC skew
Whole genome 42.97 33.35 12.79 10.89 76.31 23.69 0.13 -0.08
PCGs 33.76 41.76 11.93 12.55 75.52 24.48 -0.11 0.03
tRNAs 38.62 37.94 10.25 13.19 76.56 23.44 0.01 0.13
rRNAs 34.74 44.46 8.51 12.29 79.20 20.80 -0.12 0.18
CR 37.24 40.57 13.88 8.31 77.81 22.19 -0.04 -0.25
atp6 41.48 35.70 13.04 9.78 77.19 22.81 0.07 -0.14
atp8 48.77 37.65 7.41 6.17 86.42 13.58 0.13 -0.09
cox1 34.61 34.94 14.77 15.68 69.55 30.45 0.00 0.03
cox2 40.94 32.25 14.58 12.22 73.20 26.80 0.12 -0.09
cox3 36.38 34.98 13.81 14.83 71.36 28.64 0.02 0.04
nad1 26.71 50.81 9.12 13.36 77.52 22.48 -0.31 0.19
nad2 45.46 35.47 9.58 9.48 80.94 19.06 0.12 -0.01
nad3 37.89 36.47 12.25 13.39 74.36 25.64 0.02 0.04
nad4 24.68 51.47 11.66 12.19 76.15 23.85 -0.35 0.02
nad4l 26.32 48.42 9.47 15.79 74.74 25.26 -0.30 0.25
nad5 26.55 51.40 9.88 12.16 77.95 22.05 -0.32 0.10
nad6 41.51 39.57 10.11 8.82 81.08 18.92 0.02 -0.07
cytb 34.30 38.61 14.16 12.93 72.91 27.09 -0.06 -0.05

Protein coding genes

The nucleotide composition of the 13 PCGs of M. indica is: T (41.76%) >A (33.76%) > G (12.55%) > C (11.93%), AT (75.52%) > GC (24.48%), showing TA-skew and GC-skew. Nine PCGs (atp6, atp8, cox1, cox2, cox3, cytb, nad2, nad3, and nad6) are encoded on the J-strand, and four PCGs (nad5, nad4, nad4l, and nad1) are encoded on the N-strand. Most PCGs used ATN (ATT/ATA/ATG) as their initiation codon, except cox1, atp8, and nad1that used TTG as the initiation codon. The termination codons of most PCGs are TAA, while the termination codon of cox1 and cox2 ended with an incomplete T.

Statistics on the relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of M. indica, the results reveal that the most frequently used codon was UUA (Leu2), while the least commonly used codons were AGG (Ser1) and CCG (Pro) (Fig 4). Among the synonymous codons, those codons ending in A/U at the third base were more frequently used than those codons ending in G/C.

Fig 4. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) in the mitochondrial genome of M. indica.

Fig 4

We analyzed the relationship between the effective number of codons (ENC), GC content of all codons, GC content of the first codon position (GC1), GC content of the second codon position (GC2), and GC content of the third codon position (GC3) to further explore the codon usage patterns of Pentatomidae species. The results showed that ENC has a strong positive correlations with GC and GC3 (R2>0.95), while ENC has a weak positive correlation with GC1 and GC2 (R2<0.75) (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Evaluation of codon bias in the mitochondrial genomes of Pentatomidae.

Fig 5

We calculated the synonymous substitution rate (Ks) and non-synonymous substitution rate (Ka) of the PCGs of Pentatomidae. The evolutionary rates of the PCGs are in the order of atp8 > nad5 > nad4 > nad2 > nad6 > nad4l > nad1 > atp6 > nad3 > cox2 > cox3 > cytb > cox1 (Fig 6). The results showed that Ks>Ka and Ka/Ks<1, indicating that evolution occurred under purifying selection.

Fig 6. The Ka, Ks, and Ka/Ks values of 13 PCGs within Pentatomidae.

Fig 6

Transfer and ribosomal RNAs

The nucleotide composition of the 22 tRNA genes of M. indica was as follows: A (38.62%) > T (37.94%) > G (13.19%) > C (10.25%), AT (76.56%) > GC (23.44%), showing AT-skew and GC-skew. Excepting for trnS1, which lacks a stem structure in the DHU arm, all 21 remaining tRNA genes can form a typical cloverleaf structure. The length of the 22 tRNAs was 64–72 bp, with 14 tRNA genes (trnA, trnD, trnE, trnG, trnI, trnK, trnL2, trnM, trnN, trnR, trnS1, trnS2, trnT, and trnW) on the J-strand, and eight tRNA genes (trnC, trnF, trnH, trnL1, trnP, trnQ, trnV, and trnY) on the N-strand. Twenty-one wobble G-U pairs, one wobble A-C pair and one wobble U-C pair were found in 22 tRNAs gene. In Pentatomidae, we observed that 22 tRNA genes contained 41.36% conserved sites (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Potential secondary structure of tRNA in M. indica.

Fig 7

Note: The conserved sites within Pentatomidae were marked in green.

The nucleotide composition of the M. indica rRNA genes is as follows: T (44.46%) > A (34.74%) > G (12.29%) > C (8.51%), and AT (79.20%) > GC (20.80%), showing TA-skew and GC-skew. Both rrnL and rrnS genes are encoded on the N-strand, with a total length of 2067 bp. In Pentatomidae, rrnL contained 35.45% conserved sites and rrnS contained 26.37% conserved sites (Figs 8 and 9).

Fig 8. Potential secondary structure of rrnL in M. indica.

Fig 8

Note: The conserved sites within Pentatomidae were marked in green.

Fig 9. Potential secondary structure of rrnS in M. indica.

Fig 9

Note: The conserved sites within Pentatomidae were marked in green.

Control region

The control region of M. indica is located between rrnS and trnI (GAT), and is 1046 bp in length. The nucleotide composition of the control region is: T (40.57%)>A (37.24%)>C (13.88%)>G (8.31%), and AT (77.81%)>GC (22.19%), showing TA-skew and CG-skew. We observed eight tandem repeat sequences in the control region with a length range of 18–149 bp (Table 4).

Table 4. Tandem repeats of the control region of the mitochondrial genome of M. indica.

Indices Period Size Copy Number Consensus Size Percent Matches Percent Indels Score Entropy (0–2)
517–583 18 3.9 18 80 9 79 1.57
723–1046 67 4.8 66 86 7 347 1.61
716–1046 33 10 32 75 13 171 1.61
721–996 49 5.5 49 78 9 231 1.62
723–1028 82 3.7 84 79 11 278 1.61
716–996 149 1.9 149 91 4 451 1.61
750–1046 116 2.5 117 83 8 374 1.6
716–1045 149 2.2 148 86 7 436 1.61

Phylogenetic relationships

Before reconstructing the phylogenetic tree, we performed saturation and heterogeneity analyses on the two datasets (PCGs and PRT). The saturation analysis showed that the sequences of the two datasets are not saturated (Iss<Iss. c, and p<0.05) (Fig 10). Heterogeneity analysis revealed that the composition of the sequences exhibited low heterogeneity (Fig 11). Both studies indicated that these datasets were suitable for phylogenetic studies.

Fig 10. Saturation analysis based on two datasets (PCGs and PRT).

Fig 10

Fig 11. Heterogeneity analysis based on two datasets (PCGs and PRT).

Fig 11

We constructed phylogenetic trees of Pentatomidae using two datasets (PCGs and PRT) and the Bayesian inference method. The phylogenetic trees based on the each individual datasets had similar topological structures, however, the phylogenetic relationships of Graphosoma rubrolineatum (Westwood, 1837) and Tholosanus proximus (Dallas, 1851) could not be well determined. Meanwhile, we had selected a phylogenetic tree based on the PRT dataset with the highest bootstrap values to represent our results. The phylogenetic positions of the Pentatominae are as follows: (Neojurtina + ((Eysarcorini + (Graphosomatini + (Carpocorini + ((Palomena + Nezara) + ((Anaxilaus + Mecideini) + (Glaucias + Plautia)))))) + (((Caystrini + Halyini) + (Cappaeini + (Placosternum + Phyllocephalini))) + (Sephelini + (Myrocheini + Deroploini)) + ((Hoplistoderini + (Menidini + Asopinae)) + (Pentatoma + ((Podopini + Catacanthini) + Strachiini)))))) (S1 Fig and Fig 12). Neojurtina typica Distant, 1921 was the earliest divergent lineage within Pentatomidae. M. indica and Anaxilaus musgravei Gross, 1976 formed a sister group relationship, Caystrini and Halyini formed a sister group relationship, and strongly supported the monophyly of Strachiini and Eysarcorini.

Fig 12. Phylogenetic tree inferred from PRT constructed using BI analysis.

Fig 12

The number on the branches indicates Bayesian posterior probabilities.

Divergence time estimation

We evaluated the divergence time of the Pentatomidae based on the PCGs dataset (Fig 13). The results revealed that the divergence time of the Pentatomidae was 122.75 Mya (95% HPD: 98.76–145.43 Mya), which was in the Aptian stage of the early Cretaceous period within the Mesozoic era. Pentatominae and Podopinae are not monophyletic groups, and their phylogenetic relationships are relatively chaotic. As one of the earliest differentiated species in Pentatominae, the divergence time of N. typica was 93.59 Mya (95% HPD: 70.94–117.10 Mya) during the Cenomanian stage of the Mesozoic Cretaceous and Late Cretaceous. The divergence time of M. indica and A. musgravei was 50.50 Mya (95% HPD: 37.20–64.80 Mya), which was in the Eocene Epulian of Cenozoic Paleogene. In Podopinae, G. rubrolineatum was the earliest species to differentiate, with a divergence time of 72.01 Mya (95% HPD: 55.06–90.78 Mya), and was in the Campanian period of the Late Cretaceous of the Mesozoic Cretaceous. The divergence time of Asopinae was 62.32 Mya (95% HPD: 47.08–78.23 Mya), and it was in the Cenozoic Paleogene Paleocene Daning period. The divergence time between two species of the subfamily Phyllocephalinae and Placosternum urus Stål, 1876 was 57.75 Mya (95% HPD: 43.12–73.11 Mya), and it was in the Cenozoic Paleogene Paleocene Zanite period.

Fig 13. The chronogram of divergence times by BEAST analysis.

Fig 13

Discussion and conclusions

In this study, we sequenced the complete mitochondrial genome of M. indica using second-generation sequencing technology. The arrangement of the 37 genes was consistent with that of published Pentatomidae species [52, 53, 65], indicating that no gene rearrangements have occurred. The nucleotide composition of the mitochondrial genome of M. indica exhibits high AT content, and base composition heterogeneity is common in Heteroptera species [49].

Codon usage bias is a process by which species gradually adapt to their growth environments during evolution. Analyzing codon usage can aid studies of evolution and environmental adaptability of different species. In the M. indica mitochondrial genome, we observed a significant AT bias in the nucleotide composition and a preference for codon usage ending with A/T. The evolutionary rate of Pentatomidae was less than one, indicating that they have been subjected to purification selection. The evolution rate of atp8 was the fastest, whereas that of cox1 was the slowest, consistent with previous studies [58, 66]. These results indicate that M. indica evolution may have been influenced by natural selection.

Except for trnS1, the 21 tRNA genes in M. indica had typical clover-shaped secondary structures common to many insect species. Some atypical base pairings, such as the G-U pairing, were observed in 22 tRNA genes and two rRNA genes of M. indica. These non-Watson-Crick pairings can be converted into fully functional proteins via post-transcriptional mechanisms [67, 68]. The structures of the tRNA genes are more conserved in Pentatomidae than those of the rRNA genes.

The phylogenetic trees we constructed were similar to those constructed via traditional morphological studies (Rider et al. 2018) [2]. M. indica has a close genetic relationship with A. musgravei and N. typica was the first species to differentiate from Pentatomidae. These same results were obtained by Lian et al. (2022) [66] and Ding et al. (2023) [65]. Our study results rejected the monophyly of Pentatominae and Podopinae, and supported Asopinae as monophyletic. Our results agreed with those of Lian et al. (2022) [66], who supported the monophyletic group of Phyllocephalinae. The monophyly of Eysarcorini and Strachiini is supported in many studies [24, 53, 65]. Halyini and Caystrini are closely related, forming a stable sister group relationship. Ina study by Li et al. (2021) [53], Nezarini and Antestiini were clustered on the same branch, which differs from the results of this study. The relationship between Nezarini and Antestiini remains unclear. In addition, the classification status of Pentatomini, Antestini, and Nezarini was unstable, and more attention should be paid to these tribes in terms of their morphology and molecules. Therefore, more taxa are required to better explain the phylogenetic relationships of the Pentatomidae. The molecular clock method was used to estimate origin and divergence time of each species and to further explore the evolutionary history of Pentatomidae. Pentatomidae species originated in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era, whereas M. indica originated in the Paleogene period of the Cenozoic era. In addition, in the evolutionary history of Pentatomidae, a special type of predatory bug has arisen feeding habits have undergone corresponding changes that may be related to environmental changes. This evolutionary history requires further research.

This study is the first to sequence the M. indica mitochondrial genome, and provides a theoretical basis for the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of Pentatomidae. Due to the relatively small number of mitochondrial genomes in Pentatomidae, research on the phylogenetic relationships among Pentatomidae is limited and cannot provide good taxonomic position. Therefore, further research is needed to increase the number of mitochondrial genomes in Pentatomidae species and to further elucidate the phylogenetic relationships among Pentatomidae by combining morphological and biological characteristics.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Phylogenetic tree inferred from PCGs constructed using BI analysis.

The number on the branches indicates Bayesian posterior probabilities.

(TIF)

pone.0299298.s001.tif (3.8MB, tif)
S1 Table. Partitions and models based on partition finder of PCGs.

(XLSX)

pone.0299298.s002.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Partitions and models based on partition finder of PRT.

(XLSX)

pone.0299298.s003.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bo Cai (Hainan Province Engineering Research Center for Quarantine) for providing the specimens, and thanks Editage for linguistic assistance during the preparation and revision of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All files are available from the NCBI database (accession number: OR654110).

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Project of China (No.31872272); the Research Project Supported by Shanxi Scholarship Council of China (Nos. 2020-064), Natural Science Research General Project of Shanxi Province (Nos.202103021224331), Key Forestry Research and Development Plan of Shanxi Province (LYZDYF2023-35). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Grazia J, Panizzi AR, Greve C, Schwertner CF, Campos LA, de A. Garbelotto T, et al. Stink Bugs (Pentatomidae). True Bugs (Heteroptera) of the Neotropics. 2015;681–756. 10.1007/978-94-017-9861-7_22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rider DA, Schwertner CF, Vilímová J, Rédei D, Kment P, Thomas DB. Higher systematics of the Pentatomoidea. In: McPherson JE (Ed.) Invasive Stink Bugs and Related Species (Pentatomoidea): Biology, Higher Systematics, Semiochemistry, and Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2018;25–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mi Q, Zhang J, Gould E, Chen J, Sun Z, Zhang F. Biology, ecology, and management of Erthesina fullo (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae): a review. Insects. 2020;11(6):346. 10.3390/insects11060346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gao Z, Wang X, Zhang L, Sun Y, Fan J, Fu X, et al. Study on artificial breeding technology and releasing in field of Arma chinensis Fallou. Journal of Engineering of Heilongjiang University. 2012;3:65–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tang Y, Li Y, Liu C, Mao J, Chen H, Zhang L, et al. Predation and behavior of Arma chinensis to Spodoptera frugiperda. Plant Prot. 2019;45(4):65–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yang ZH, Meng L, Bao-Ping LI. Larval instar-dependent effects on predation behavior of stinkbug Arma chinensis attacking Spodoptera litura larvae. Chinese Journal of Ecology. 2019;38(11):3376–3381. 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201911.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sailer RI. A review of the stink bugs of the genus Mecidea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum; 1952. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hsiao TY, Cheng LI. Pentatomidae. In: Hsiao T.Y., Jen S.C., Cheng L.I., Liu S.L. & Ching H.L.A. (Eds.), Handbook for the determination of the Chinese Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Vol. 1. Beijing: Science Press; 1977. p.147. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rider D, Zheng L, Kerzhner I. Checklist and nomenclatural notes on the Chinese Pentatomidae (Heteroptera). II. Pentatominae. Zoosystematica Rossica. 2002;11(1):135–153. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rider DA. Pentatomidae. In: Aukema B. & Rieger Ch. (Eds.), Catalogue of Heteroptera of the Palaearctic Region, Netherlands Entomological Society; 2006. pp. 233–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fan ZH. The Study on Systematics of Pentatominae from China (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)[dissertation]. Tianjin: Nankai University; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Boore JL. Animal mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic acids research. 1999;27(8):1767–1780. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.8.1767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang Y, Chen J, Jiang LY, Qiao GX. Hemipteran mitochondrial genomes: features, structures and implications for phylogeny. International Journal o-f Molecular Sciences. 2015;16(6):12382–12404. doi: 10.3390/ijms160612382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen LP, Zheng FY, Bai J, Wang JM, Lv CY, Li X, et al. Comparative analysis of mitogenomes among six species of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Catantopidae) and their phylogenetic implications in wing-type evolution. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2020;159:1062–1072. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang S, Ding X, Yi W, Zhao W, Zhao Q, Zhang H. Comparative mitoge-nomic analysis of three bugs of the genus Hygia Uhler, 1861 (Hemiptera, Coreidae) and their phylogenetic position. ZooKeys. 2023;1179:123–138. 8. https://doi.org/10.3897/ zookeys.1179.100006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen W, Qin H, Zhao Z, Liao J, Chen H, Jiang L, et al. The mitochondr-ial genome and phylogenetic analysis of Rhacophorus rhodopus. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):13693. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17814-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zheng XY, Cao LJ, Chen PY, Chen XX, van Achterberg K, Hoffmann AA, et al. Comparative mitogenomics and phylogenetics of the stinging wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021;159:107119. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yuan ML, Zhang QL, Guo ZL, Wang J, Shen YY. Comparative mitogeno-mic analysis of the superfamily Pentatomoidea (Insecta: Hemiptera: Hetero-ptera) and phylogenetic implications. BMC genomics. 2015;16(1):1–16. 10.1186/s12864-015-1679-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mu YL, Zhang CH, Zhang YJ, Yang L, Chen XS. Characterizing the complete mitochondrial genome of Arma custos and Picromerus lewisi (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) and conducting phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Insect Science. 2022;22(1):6. 10.1093/jisesa/ieab105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xu S, Wu Y, Liu Y, Zhao P, Chen Z, Song F, et al. Comparative mitogenomics and phylogenetic analyses of Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Genes. 2021;12(9):1306. doi: 10.3390/genes12091306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Grazia J, Schuh RT, Wheeler WC. Phylogenetic relationships of family gro-ups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera). Cladistics. 2008;24(6):932–976. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00224.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhao W, Zhao Q, Li M, Wei J, Zhang X, Zhang H. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome and phylogenetic implications for Eurydema maracandica (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2017;2(2):550–551. 10.1080/23802359.2017.1365649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Genevcius BC, Greve C, Koehler S, Simmons RB, Rider DA, Grazia J, et al. Phylogeny of the stink bug tribe Chlorocorini (Heteroptera, Pentatomidae) based on DNA and morphological data: the evolution of key phenotypic traits. Systematic Entomology. 2021;46(2):327–338. 10.1111/syen.12464 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Roca‐Cusachs M, Schwertner CF, Kim J, Eger J, Grazia J, Jung S. Opening Pandora’s box: molecular phylogeny of the stink bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) reveals great incongruences in the current classification. Systematic Entomology. 2022;47(1):36–51. 10.1111/syen.12514 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Li H, Leavengood JM Jr, Chapman EG, Burkhardt D, Song F, Jiang P, et al. Mitochondrial phylogenomics of Hemiptera reveals adaptive innovations driving the diversification of true bugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2017;284(1862):20171223. 10.1098/rspb.2017.1223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ pre-processor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(17):i884–i890. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12):1647–1649. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bernt M, Donath A, Jühling F, Externbrink F, Florentz C, Fritzsch G, et a-l. MITOS: improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 2013;69(2):313–319. 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Grant JR, Stothard P. The CGView Server: a comparative genomics tool for circular genomes. Nucleic acids research. 2008;36(suppl_2):W181–W184. 10.1093/nar/gkn179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Molecular biology and evolution. 2021;38(7):3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Perna NT, Kocher TD. Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. Journal of molecular evolution. 1995;41:353–358. doi: 10.1007/BF00186547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Peden JF. Analysis of codon usage [dissertation]. Dept of Genetics: University of Nottingham; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sánchez-DelBarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE, et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Molecular biology and evolution. 2017;34(12):3299–3302. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Benson G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic acids research. 1999;27(2):573–580. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.2.573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vaidya G, Lohman DJ, Meier R. SequenceMatrix: concatenation software f-or the fast assembly of multi‐gene datasets with character set and codon i-nformation. Cladistics. 2011;27(2):171–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00329.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Talavera G, Castresana J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Systematic biology. 2007;56(4):564–577. doi: 10.1080/10635150701472164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xia X, Xie Z. DAMBE: software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Journal of heredity. 2001;92(4):371–373. doi: 10.1093/jhered/92.4.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kück P, Meid SA, Groß C, Wägele JW, Misof B. AliGROOVE-visualization of heterogeneous sequence divergence within multiple sequence alignments and detection of inflated branch support. BMC bioinformatics. 2014;15(1):1–15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B. PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Molecular biology and evolution. 2017;34(3):772–773. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Van Der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, et al. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic biology. 2012;61(3):539–542. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(1):127–128. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sa-mpling trees. BMC evolutionary biology. 2007;7(1):1–8. 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Li M, Tian Y, Zhao Y, Bu W. Higher level phylogeny and the first divergence time estimation of Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) based on multiple genes. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e32152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Song F, Li H, Shao R, Shi A, Bai X, Zheng X, et al. Rearrangement of mitochondrial tRNA genes in flat bugs (Hemiptera: Aradidae). Scientific Reports. 2016;6(1):25725. 10.1038/srep25725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhao W. DNA barcoding and mitochondrial genomes of Chinese species of the genus Eurydema (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) [dissertation]. Shanxi: Shanxi Agricultural University; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Systematic biology. 2018;67(5):901–904. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syy032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rambaut A. FigTree v1. 4. Molecular evolution, phylogenetics and epidemiology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Institute of Evolutionary Biology; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu Y, Li H, Song F, Zhao Y, Wilson JJ, Cai W. Higher‐level phylogeny and evolutionary history of Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) inferred from mitochondrial genome sequences. Systematic Entomology. 2019;44(4):810–819. 10.1111/syen.12357 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jiang P. Studies on the comparative mitochondrial genomics and phylogeny of Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) [dissertation]. Beijing: China Agricultural University; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhang QL, Yuan ML, Shen YY. The complete mitochondrial genome of Dolycoris baccarum (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA. 2013;24(5):469–471. 10.3109/19401736.2013.766182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ji H, Xu X, Jin X, Yin H, Luo J, Liu G, et al. Using high-resolution annotation of insect mitochondrial DNA to decipher tandem repeats in the control region. RNA biology. 2019;16(6):830–7. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2019.1591035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhao W, Zhao Q, Li M, Wei J, Zhang X, Zhang H. Comparative mitogenomic analysis of the Eurydema genus in the context of representative Pentatomidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) taxa. Journal of insect science. 2019;19(6):1–12. 10.1093/jisesa/iez122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Li R, Li M, Yan J, Bai M, Zhang H. Five mitochondrial genomes of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 with phylogenetic implications for the Pentat-ominae (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Insects. 2021;12(7):597. 10.3390/insects12070597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Chen Q, Niu X, Fang Z, Weng Q. The complete mitochondrial genome of Eysarcoris guttigerus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2020;5(1):687–688. 10.1080/23802359.2020.1714498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lee W, Kang J, Jung C, Hoelmer K, Lee SH, Lee S. Complete mitochon-drial genome of brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys (Hemipte-ra: Pentatomidae), and phylogenetic relationships of hemipteran suborders. Molecules and Cells. 2009;28:155–165. 10.1007/s10059-009-0125-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hua J, Li M, Dong P, Cui Y, Xie Q, Bu W. Comparative and phylogeno-mic studies on the mitochondrial genomes of Pentatomomorpha (Insecta: H-emiptera: Heteroptera). BMC genomics. 2008;9:1–15. 10.1186/1471-2164-9-610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Chen WT, Zhang LJ, Cao Y, Yuan ML. The complete mitochondrial geno-me of Palomena viridissima (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and phylogenetic a-nalysis. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2021;6(4):1326–1327. 10.1080/23802359.2021.1909442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Zhao L, Wei J, Zhao W, Chen C, Gao X, Zhao Q. The complete mitocho-ndrial genome of Pentatoma rufipes (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) and its ph-ylogenetic implications. ZooKeys. 2021;1042:51–72. 10.3897/zookeys.1042.62302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wang J, Ji Y, Li H, Song F, Zhang L, Wang M. Characterization of the c-omplete mitochondrial genome of Pentatoma semiannulata (Hemiptera: Pe-ntatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2021;6(3):750–752. 10.1080/23802359.2021.1875912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wang Y, Duan Y, Yang X. The complete mitochondrial genome of Plautia crossota (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019;4(2):2281–2282. 10.1080/23802359.2019.1627924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chen C, Wei J, Ji W, Zhao Q. The first complete mitochondrial genome f-rom the subfamily Phyllocephalinae (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and its ph-ylogenetic analysis. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2017;2(2):938–939. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2017.1413313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wu Y, Yang H, Zhou W, Song F, Cai W, Li H. Characterization of the c-omplete mitochondrial genome of Arma custos (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2020;5(3):2624–2626. 10.1080/23802359.2020.1780985 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Zhao Q, Wei J, Zhao W, Cai B, Du X, Zhang H. The first mitochondrial genome for the subfamily Asopinae (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and its phylogenetic implications. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2017;2(2):804–805. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2017.1398599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zhao Q, Cassis G, Zhao L, He Y, Zhang H, Wei J. The complete mitochondrial genome of Zicrona caerulea (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) and its phylogenetic implications. Zootaxa. 2020;4747(3):547–561. 10.11646/zootaxa.4747.3.8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ding X, Chen C, Wei J, Gao X, Zhang H, Zhao Q. Comparative mitoge-nomics and phylogenetic analyses of the genus Menida (Hemiptera, Heter-optera, Pentatomidae). ZooKeys. 2023;1138:29–48. 10.3897/zookeys.1138.95626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lian D, Wei J, Chen C, Niu M, Zhang H, Zhao Q. Comparative analysis and phylogeny of mitochondrial genomes of Pentatomidae (Hemiptera: Pe-ntatomoidea). Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;13:1045193. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1045193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chao JA, Patskovsky Y, Almo SC, Singer RH. Structural basis for the coevolution of a viral RNA-protein complex. Nature structural & molecular biology. 2008;15(1):103–105. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pons J, Bauzà-Ribot MM, Jaume D, Juan C. Next-generation sequencing, phylogenetic signal and comparative mitogenomic analyses in Metacrangonyctidae (Amphipoda: Crustacea). BMC genomics. 2014;15:1–16. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zhao Q, Wang J, Wang MQ, Cai B, Zhang HF, Wei JF. Complete mitochondrial genome of Dinorhynchus dybowskyi (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) and phylogenetic analysis of Pentatomomorpha species. Journal of Insect Science. 2018;18(2):44. 10.1093/jisesa/iey031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pankaj Bhardwaj

20 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-35518Describe the morphology and mitochondrion genome of  Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic positionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

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 Feb 03 2024 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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments from Staff Editor: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Project of China (No.31872272); the Research Project Supported by Shanxi Scholarship Council of China (Nos. 2020-064), Natural Science Research General Project of Shanxi Province (Nos.202103021224331), Key Forestry Research and Development Plan of Shanxi Province (LYZDYF2023-35).”

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 respond by return e-mail so that we can amend your financial disclosure and competing interests on your behalf.

4. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. 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. 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: Yes

********** 

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: 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: The manuscript have describe the morphology and sequencing the mitochondrion genome of Mecidea indica Dallas,1851 and explored its phylogenetic position. The manuscript is fitted to Plos one and some minor suggestion as follow:

1.The discussion may be strength

2.The language may be improved by a native English speaker

3.Evidence of animal ethics needs to be added in manuscript

4.The figures is not clear

5.Line 80 some new paper you can cite such as :https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17814-8; DOI: 10.3724/ahr.2095-0357.2023.0003

Reviewer #2: The aim of the study is to sequence a mitochondrion genome of Mecidea indica, to perfom a phylogenetic analysis of the family Pentatomidae, as well as an divergence time estimation on this phylogeny using fossil data. In recent years, there have been many papers on mitochondrial genome, but few studies have combined morphological description with mitochondrial genome and explored its taxonomic status, so it provides a new integrated classification method.

But there are some problems that the author needs to check:

1. In this paper, the authors checked a series of speicmens, so the species measurements should be a range rather than a fixed value.

2. In “Materials and Methods”, What was the concentration of DNA? Did you use total DNA for sequencing? How the libraries were prepared and how the quality of the libraries was estimated? How did you perform de novo genome assembly in Genious and how did you determined the mitochondrial contigs?

3. It needs a scale bar on the Figure 1 about the two adult figures.

4. Instead of providing many trees, please give one which summarize all your conclusions. All other trees as well as many other graphical data from your research could be given in Supplement.

5. The description of genes should be consistent throughout the text, such as cob in some places and cytb in others.

6. Which model was determined by PartitionFinder? Is this model implemented in MrBayes?

7. The writing and language is not up to standard. Please proofread and use the spell checking functions in the word processing software of choice before submitting manuscripts.

Reviewer #3: In this study, the author described external morphology and the complete mitochondrial genome characteristics of Mecidea indica. Moreover, the author clarified the evolutionary rate and divergence time of M. indica and discussed the phylogenetic relationships of tribes within the family Pentatomidae. At present, the classification of tribes and subfamilies of Pentatomidae is still based on traditional taxonomic studies, this study is important for reconstructing the phylogeny of Pentatomidae and understanding the evolutionary history of Pentatomidae.

********** 

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Baoying Guo

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0299298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299298.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jan 2024

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your letter and for reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Describe the morphology and mitochondrion genome of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic position”. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied all comments carefully, and have made conscientious correction. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely

Qing Zhao

Response to Reviewer #1

Point 1: The discussion may be strength.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article, we have made corresponding modifications. We have revised the Discussion accordingly.

Point 2: The language may be improved by a native English speaker.

Response: We have improved our manuscript by Editage service, and the polishing proof of this manuscript is provided.

Point 3: Evidence of animal ethics needs to be added in manuscript.

Response: The species we used for scientific purposes is not protected animals and meet animal ethical requirements. It is ethical, humane and responsible. And we have added the sentence in our manuscript.

Point 4: The figures are not clear.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article. We have processed the figures.

Point 5: Line 80 some new paper you can cite such as: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17814-8;

DOI: 10.3724/ahr.2095-0357.2023.0003.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article, we have made corresponding modifications.

Response to Referee #2

Point 1: In this paper, the authors checked a series of specimens, so the species measurements should be a range rather than a fixed value.

Response: You are right that the measurement should be a numerical interval, which we have already added.

Point 2: In “Materials and Methods”, What was the concentration of DNA? Did you use total DNA for sequencing? How the libraries were prepared and how the quality of the libraries was estimated? How did you perform de novo genome assembly in Genious and how did you determined the mitochondrial contigs?

Response: Thank you very much. We used fluorescent dye (Quant it PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit) to detect the total amount of DNA. The total amount of DNA was 2.39 g, and the fluorescence concentration was 47.80 ng/l. After passing the quality inspection, the required genomic library was constructed using the standard Illumina TruSeq Nano DNA LT library preparation experimental process (Illumina TruSeq DNA Sample Preparation Guide). We chose “Map to Reference” for assembly instead of “De Novo Assemble”. And we used “HQ%” to determine the mitochondrial contigs.

Point 3: It needs a scale bar on the Figure 1 about the two adult figures.

Response: Thank you for your advice, we have added the scale bar.

Point 4: Instead of providing many trees, please give one which summarize all your conclusions. All other trees as well as many other graphical data from your research could be given in Supplement.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article. We had chosen a phylogenetic tree based on the PRT dataset with higher bootstrap values to represent our results. And the other phylogenetic tree was placed in Supplement.

Point 5: The description of genes should be consistent throughout the text, such as cob in some places and cytb in others.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article, we have made corresponding modifications.

Point 6: Which model was determined by PartitionFinder? Is this model implemented in MrBayes?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article. The model of Partition Finder was placed in Supplement. The model is implemented in MrBayes.

Point 7: The writing and language is not up to standard. Please proofread and use the spell checking functions in the word processing software of choice before submitting manuscripts.

Response: Thank you, we have accepted the advice and corrected it.

Response to Referee #3

Reviewer #3: In this study, the author described external morphology and the complete mitochondrial genome characteristics of Mecidea indica. Moreover, the author clarified the evolutionary rate and divergence time of M. indica and discussed the phylogenetic relationships of tribes within the family Pentatomidae. At present, the classification of tribes and subfamilies of Pentatomidae is still based on traditional taxonomic studies, this study is important for reconstructing the phylogeny of Pentatomidae and understanding the evolutionary history of Pentatomidae.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0299298.s004.doc (253KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Pankaj Bhardwaj

31 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-35518R1Describe the morphology and mitochondrion genome of  Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic positionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

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.

There are a few minor changes that authors need to address. Please submit the revised manuscript so I will make the appropriate decision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2024 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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

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: All comments have been addressed

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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 #2: Yes

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Point 1: The format of the numbers should be consistent, for example: “15,670 bp” on line 33 is different from “15670 bp”on line 323.

Point 2: In line 202, “95%HPD” should be “95% HPD”.

Point 3: The abbreviation "protein-coding genes (PCGs)" should appear when "protein-coding genes" first appears, and it should not be repeated later, for example: in line 174 and line 324.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Baoying Guo

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0299298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299298.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Feb 2024

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your letter and for reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Describe the morphology and mitochondrion genome of Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic position”. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied all comments carefully, and have made conscientious correction. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely

Qing Zhao

Response to Reviewer #3

Point 1: The format of the numbers should be consistent, for example: “15,670 bp” on line 33 is different from “15670 bp”on line 323.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article, we have made corresponding modifications.

Point 2: Point 2: In line 202, “95%HPD” should be “95% HPD”.

Response: We have improved our manuscript by Editage service, and the polishing proof of this manuscript is provided.

Point 3: The abbreviation "protein-coding genes (PCGs)" should appear when "protein-coding genes" first appears, and it should not be repeated later, for example: in line 174 and line 324.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments on my article, we have made corresponding modifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0299298.s005.doc (16KB, doc)

Decision Letter 2

Pankaj Bhardwaj

8 Feb 2024

Describe the morphology and mitochondrion genome of  Mecidea indica Dallas, 1851 (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), with its phylogenetic position

PONE-D-23-35518R2

Dear Dr. Zhao,

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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pankaj Bhardwaj

18 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-35518R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Pankaj Bhardwaj

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. Phylogenetic tree inferred from PCGs constructed using BI analysis.

    The number on the branches indicates Bayesian posterior probabilities.

    (TIF)

    pone.0299298.s001.tif (3.8MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Partitions and models based on partition finder of PCGs.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299298.s002.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Partitions and models based on partition finder of PRT.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0299298.s003.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0299298.s004.doc (253KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0299298.s005.doc (16KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All files are available from the NCBI database (accession number: OR654110).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES