Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247500

Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi

De-Fen Mou 1,¤, Wei-Te Chen 1, Wei-Hua Li 1, Tsung-Chi Chen 2, Chien-Hao Tseng 1, Li-Hsin Huang 3, Jui-Chu Peng 4, Shyi-Dong Yeh 5, Chi-Wei Tsai 1,*
Editor: Livia Maria Silva Ataide6
PMCID: PMC7928467  PMID: 33657150

Abstract

Thrips and thrips-transmitted tospoviruses cause significant losses in crop yields worldwide. The melon thrips (Thrips palmi) is not only a pest of cucurbit crops, but also a vector that transmits tospoviruses, such as the watermelon silver mottle virus (WSMoV). Vector transmission of tospoviruses has been well studied in the tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)–Frankliniella occidentalis model system; however, until now the transmission mode of WSMoV by T. palmi has not been sufficiently examined. The results of the transmission assays suggest that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent manner, and that the virus is mainly transmitted by adults, having been ingested at the first-instar larval stage. Complementary RNAs corresponding to the NSm and NSs genes of WSMoV were detected in viruliferous thrips by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; NSs protein was also detected in viruliferous thrips by western blotting, verifying the replication of WSMoV in T. palmi. Furthermore, we demonstrated that in thrips infected with WSMoV at the first-instar larval stage, the virus eventually infected various tissues of the adult thrips, including the primary salivary glands. Taken together, these results suggest that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent-propagative mode. The results of this study make a significant contribution to the understanding of the transmission biology of tospoviruses in general.

Introduction

Thrips and thrips-transmitted tospoviruses cause significant yield losses in both food crops and ornamentals in many countries across the globe [1, 2]. Tospovirus-incited diseases have become a major constraint on the production of vegetables, fruits, and legumes worldwide. Of the tospoviruses, tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) is the most devastating due to its extremely wide host range [3]. TSWV is transmitted from plant to plant by several thrips species, with the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) being its most efficient vector [4]. Watermelon silver mottle virus (WSMoV) is another tospovirus which affects cucurbit production in Asia, resulting in yield reduction and unmarketable fruits [5, 6]. The melon thrips (Thrips palmi) is the only identified vector of WSMoV [6], whilst the vector competence of other thrips species has not been investigated.

Tospoviruses belong to the genus Orthotospovirus of the family Tospoviridae [7]. To date, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses lists 18 tospoviruses as recognized species. TSWV, impatiens necrotic spot virus (INSV), and iris yellow spot virus (IYSV) occur in five continents of the world, whereas WSMoV has only been recorded in Asian countries [3]. TSWV and INSV have wide host ranges, comprising more than 900 and 300 plant species, respectively [2, 3]. WSMoV only infects cucurbit species and some experimental hosts [5, 6].

In the field, tospoviruses are transmitted exclusively by thrips [8]. Mound (2002) [9] suggested a coevolution for the transmission specificity between tospoviruses and their vector thrips. While there are over 7,700 thrips species identified, so far only 18 species have been reported to transmit tospoviruses [4, 8, 10, 11]. All vector thrips belong to the family Thripidae and subfamily Thripinae [4], with the exception of Neohydatothrips variabilis which belongs to subfamily Sericothripinae [12]. Frankliniella occidentalis and T. palmi have the ability to transmit at least seven tospovirus species each, with no overlap [4, 8]. TSWV is transmitted by several thrips species, including F. occidentalis [1318], whereas the only known vector of WSMoV is T. palmi [6]. Tospoviruses are transmitted by mechanical inoculation with varying degrees of difficulty [19], and none are seed-transmitted [5, 20, 21].

Insect transmission of plant viruses is categorized into four transmission modes: non-persistent, semi-persistent, persistent-circulative, and persistent-propagative [22, 23]. The characteristics used to distinguish each mode are: acquisition access period (AAP), inoculation access period (IAP), latent period, retention time in vector, presence in vector’s hemolymph, and multiplication within the vector [22, 23]. Thrips transmission of tospoviruses includes several days of latent period, followed by lifelong retention of the virus, with the viruses replicating within various tissues of the vector [8].

Our current understanding of tospovirus transmission is largely from studies on the TSWV–F. occidentalis model system. Frankliniella occidentalis transmits TSWV in a persistent-propagative mode [8, 23]. To sum up, first- and second-instar larvae feeding on a TSWV-infected plant can acquire the virus which is subsequently transmitted during the adult stage or, rarely, during the second-instar stage. Uniquely, whilst adult thrips can acquire the virus by feeding, they cannot transmit the virus that is acquired at the adult stage [24]. During the course of vector transmission, TSWV infects various tissues and replicates in the cells of F. occidentalis [2528]. Once F. occidentalis has acquired TSWV, it persistently transmits the virus for the rest of its life; however, TSWV is not transmitted to the progeny of its vector thrips [29].

Researchers may consider that the transmission biology of other tospoviruses should be the same as that of the well-studied TSWV model. Therefore, to examine the competence of a thrips species to act as a vector of a given tospovirus, most studies assumed virus acquisition during the larval stage and transmission during the adult stage (e.g., [10, 11, 14, 1618, 30, 31]). However, it is possible that the transmission biology of other tospoviruses differs from that of TSWV. In fact, the possibility of non-persistent and semi-persistent transmission modes have been rarely studied.

Based on a phylogenetic analysis of nucleoprotein amino acid sequences, WSMoV belongs to the Asian group, while TSWV is a representative of the American group [3, 32], implying that WSMoV is distantly related to TSWV. Our objective was to examine the transmission mode of WSMoV, a virus that is distantly related to TSWV, which is considered as a well-studied prototype. The results of this study will broaden our understanding of the transmission biology of tospoviruses in general.

Materials and methods

Insect, virus, and plants

The sources of the T. palmi colony and WSMoV Tainan isolate were previously described in Chen et al. [33]. The thrips colony was maintained on bean (Phaseolus coccineus) seedlings in 2-L glass beakers sealed with fine fabric (150 mesh/inch, pore size 160 μm) in an environmental chamber at 25°C, 70% relative humidity (RH), and a photoperiod of L:D 16:8 h. Adult females were transferred to cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) using a fine brush, and pollen was provided to enhance oviposition. Newly hatched first- and second-instar larvae were collected from the surface of the cucumbers using a fine brush.

WSMoV was maintained in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus cv. Empire no. 2, Known-You Seed Co., Taiwan) seedlings by vector transmission using T. palmi. WSMoV-infected source plants and non-infected watermelon seedlings were prepared and maintained as previously described [33]. Watermelon and bean seedlings used in this study were grown from seeds and cultured in an environmental chamber at 25°C, 70% RH, and a photoperiod of L:D 16:8 h. All experiments had negative controls, which were from the same batch of watermelon seedlings but had not been exposed to thrips. These negative controls were kept with the test plants inoculated with WSMoV by viruliferous T. palmi within the same environmental chamber until the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay was conducted (see below). None of the control plants tested positive for WSMoV.

Non-persistent transmission mode

The transmission assays for the non-persistent transmission mode were conducted with three treatments using different developmental stages of the thrips: 1) virus acquisition and transmission by first-instar larvae, 2) virus acquisition and transmission by second-instar larvae, and 3) virus acquisition and transmission by adults. For the test insects, we used first-instar larvae within 4 h of hatching, second-instar larvae within 4 h of molting, and adults within 48 h of emergence. Watermelon seedlings at the one-true-leaf stage were used as healthy test plants. After a 1-h starvation period, the thrips were given an acquisition access period (AAP) of 15 min to acquire the virus from detached WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves in plastic Petri dishes (9 cm dia.). Subsequently, five potentially viruliferous thrips were transferred to each test plant enclosed in a 1-L beaker sealed with a fine fabric (150 mesh/inch) for a 2-h inoculation access period (IAP). Ten replicate test plants for each treatment were inoculated with their respective thrips. After the IAP, the inoculated test plants were sprayed with a systemic insecticide (acetamiprid) to kill the thrips. We maintained the thrips-inoculated test plants within an environmental chamber at the aforementioned conditions for disease development until the RT-PCR assay (see below). The experiment was repeated three times.

Semi-persistent transmission mode

Similar experimental protocols to those used for the non-persistent transmission mode were conducted to investigate whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV semi-persistently. The transmission assays consisted of three treatments: 1) virus acquisition and transmission by first-instar larvae, 2) virus acquisition and transmission by second-instar larvae, and 3) virus acquisition and transmission by adults. The test thrips were given an AAP of 2 h on detached WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves in Petri dishes (9 cm dia.) to acquire the virus, and then potentially viruliferous thrips were allowed to feed on test plants at a density of five thrips per plant for a 24-h IAP. Ten replicate test plants were used per treatment. After the IAP, the inoculated test plants were sprayed with acetamiprid and maintained using the aforementioned protocol. The experiment was repeated three times.

Persistent transmission mode

Similar experimental protocols to those used for non-persistent transmission mode were conducted to investigate whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV persistently. The transmission assays consisted of four treatments: 1) virus acquisition by first-instar larvae and transmission by adults, 2) virus acquisition by first-instar larvae and transmission by second-instar larvae, 3) virus acquisition by second-instar larvae and transmission by adults, and 4) virus acquisition and transmission by adults. The test thrips were given an AAP of 48 h on detached WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves in Petri dishes (9 cm dia.) to acquire the virus. After the AAP, first- and second-instar larvae were individually reared on a piece of bean leaf (1.5 × 1.5 cm) enclosed in a glass vial (4.5 cm × 1.5 cm dia.) sealed with parafilm and incubated at 25°C until they developed to second-instar larvae or adults through various latent periods. The adults were sexed after emergence. Subsequently, one or five potentially viruliferous thrips were transferred to each test plant for a 48-h IAP. One thrips per test plant for virus inoculation was used to compare the transmission efficiencies of adult females and males for treatment 1), and five thrips per test plant were used to account for the possible low transmission efficiencies for the other treatments. Ten replicate test plants were used per treatment. After the IAP, the inoculated test plants were sprayed with acetamiprid and maintained using the aforementioned protocol. The experiment was repeated three times.

Virus detection by one-step RT-PCR

WSMoV-infected leaves were subjected to RNA extraction and one-step RT-PCR analysis after the end of the AAP to confirm infection with the virus. All virus-infected source leaves tested positive for WSMoV. All inoculated test plants were examined using one-step RT-PCR two weeks after the end of the IAP. RNA extraction and one-step RT-PCR analysis were conducted as previously described [33]. The vector transmission rate was calculated as the percentage of test plants infected with WSMoV.

Virus-infected tissues of T. palmi

To examine the WSMoV-infected tissues and organs of T. palmi, an indirect immunofluorescence assay was performed as previously described by Montero-Astúa et al. [34]. First-instar larvae of T. palmi were allowed to feed on WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves for 48 h and then transferred to bean seedlings until they developed into adults. Potentially viruliferous adult females were collected for the immunofluorescence assay. Tissues and organs of the thrips were dissected in ice-cold 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) under a stereomicroscope. The dissected tissues were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 1 h in a humid box at room temperature. After fixation, the tissues were rinsed twice with PBS containing 0.1% Triton-X 100 (PBST), and then incubated with PBST overnight at 4°C. Subsequently, the tissues were rinsed with PBS and blocked with 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) in PBS for 30 min at room temperature to prevent non-specific binding of the antibody. Afterwards, the tissues were rinsed three times with PBST and then incubated with a polyclonal rabbit antiserum against WSMoV nucleocapsid protein (200× dilution in PBST with 0.1% BSA) for 1.5 h at room temperature. The tissues were rinsed three times with PBST and then incubated with a goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G (IgG) antiserum conjugated with Alexa Fluor 555 (200× dilution, Invitrogen) for 2 h at room temperature. After rinsing three times with PBST, the tissues were incubated with phalloidin conjugated with Alexa Fluor 633 (40× dilution, Invitrogen) for 2 h at room temperature. Finally, the specimens were rinsed three times with PBST to remove any non-specific binding and mounted with SlowFade Gold antifade reagent with DAPI (Invitrogen). Slides were kept at 4°C until examined with a Leica TCS SP5 II confocal laser-scanning microscope the following day.

Detection of viral complementary RNA by two-step RT-PCR

Two-step RT-PCR was used to detect the viral complementary RNA (vcRNA) corresponding to the NSm and NSs genes in viruliferous thrips and infected plants. vcRNA is first replicated from viral genomic RNA (vgRNA), and then progeny vgRNA is generated from the vcRNA [35]. The presence of vcRNA implies the replication of WSMoV in its vector. Total RNA was extracted from single thrips or watermelon leaf tissue using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Total RNA of non-viruliferous thrips and WSMoV-infected watermelon leaf tissue served as negative and positive controls, respectively. vcRNA in total RNA samples was reverse-transcribed to cDNA using a GoScript Reverse Transcription System (Promega) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. We designed two primers: NSm_372 (5’- ATGACTCTCTTGTTGGTAATGG -3’) and NSs_73 (5’- ACTGCAAAGAATGCTGCTTC -3’) that would specifically anneal to the complementary strands of the WSMoV M and S segments, respectively. cDNA was amplified by PCR using NSm_372 and NSm_668 (5’- GTTGCATGCACTGCTTAGG -3’) as primers for the WSMoV M segment and NSs_73 and NSs_378 (5’- CTTCACACCTGGTTTCCTTAC -3’) for the WSMoV S segment. PCR conditions were as follows: 95°C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 sec, 52°C for 30 sec, and 72°C for 30 sec, with a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min. Expected sizes of the PCR products were 297 bp and 306 bp for partial NSm and NSs genes, respectively. The PCR products were purified using a QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen) and then directly sequenced in both directions by Sanger sequencing. The identities of the sequences were confirmed by conducting BLAST searches in NCBI GenBank using the BLASTn algorithm. The experiment was repeated three times.

Western blot analysis

Western blotting was used to detect WSMoV NSs protein in viruliferous thrips and infected plants. Crude antigen was extracted from pools of 20 thrips or watermelon leaf tissue using Laemmli sample buffer (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Crude extracts from non-viruliferous thrips and WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves were served as negative and positive controls, respectively. Female and male thrips were treated separately. The proteins were separated from others by sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), transferred to a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane, and labelled by primary and secondary antibodies as previously described by Mahmood and Yang [36]. A monoclonal mouse antibody against the NSs protein (5,000× dilution) and a goat anti-mouse IgG antiserum conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (25,000× dilution; Invitrogen) were used in this study. The target bands were detected with LumiFlash Femto Chemiluminescent substrate (Visual Protein, Taiwan). The experiment was repeated three times.

Statistical analyses

For the transmission assays, data from the three replicates were pooled for further statistical analysis because there were no significant differences of variance among them (S1 Table). Transmission rates among treatments in each transmission mode were compared using χ2 test. Swallow estimator [37] was used to estimate the probability that a single thrips transmits the virus when groups of thrips were used for virus inoculation. All data analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 22.0.

Results

Non-persistent transmission mode

To assess whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV non-persistently, first- and second-instar larvae and adults were given characteristic short AAP and IAP without a latent period [22]. The results of the transmission assays revealed that T. palmi could not transmit WSMoV with a 15-min AAP and a 2-h IAP, irrespective of the developmental stage of the thrips used for virus acquisition and inoculation (Table 1). The transmission rates of the three developmental stages of the thrips were 0%. WSMoV-infected source leaves were subjected to RT-PCR assay after the end of the AAP, and all tested positive for WSMoV. The results suggest that T. palmi cannot transmit WSMoV in a non-persistent manner.

Table 1. Transmission mode and transmission efficiency of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi.

Transmission mode Virus-acquiring instar Virus-inoculating instar N Transmission efficiencya Psb
Non-persistent transmission
First-instar larva First-instar larva 30 0% 0%
Second-instar larva Second-instar larva 30 0% 0%
Adult Adult 30 0% 0%
Semi-persistent transmission
First-instar larva First-instar larva 30 3.3% 0.7%
Second-instar larva Second-instar larva 30 6.7% 1.4%
Adult Adult 30 0% 0%
Persistent transmission
First-instar larva Adult 30 76.7%
First-instar larva Second-instar larva 30 3.3% 0.7%
Second-instar larva Adult 30 3.3% 0.7%
Adult Adult 30 6.7% 1.4%

a The transmission efficiency was calculated as the percentage of test plants positive for WSMoV examined by RT-PCR assays.

b Ps: Swallow estimator, probability that a single thrips transmits the virus. Ps = 1-(R/N)1/k where k = number of thrips per test plant; N = number of test plants; R = number of negative plants.

Semi-persistent transmission mode

To assess whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV semi-persistently, first- and second-instar larvae and adults were given the characteristic AAP and IAP of semi-persistent transmission without a latent period [22]. The results of the transmission assays revealed that first- and second-instar larvae transmitted WSMoV with a 2-h AAP and a 24-h IAP, although the transmission rates were very low (Table 1). Adults could not transmit WSMoV under semi-persistent conditions (Table 1). There were no significant differences of variance among data from three replicates (χ2 test, P > 0.05; S1 Table), so the data were pooled for further statistical analysis. The transmission rates of first- and second-instar larvae were 3.3% and 6.7%, respectively, and they were not significantly different (χ2 = 0.35; df = 1; P = 0.55). The Swallow estimator (Ps) was about 1% for both first- and second-instar larvae (Table 1). Virus-infected source leaves were subjected to RT-PCR assay after the end of the AAP, and all tested positive for WSMoV. The results suggest that only about 1% of T. palmi larvae transmit WSMoV in a semi-persistent manner.

Persistent transmission mode

To assess whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV persistently, first- and second-instar larvae and adults were given a 48-h AAP, various latent periods, and a 48-h IAP successively. The results showed that there were no significant differences of variance among data from three replicates (χ2 test, P > 0.05; S1 Table), so the data were pooled for further statistical analysis. The results of the transmission assays revealed that WSMoV transmission occurred in all four treatments (Table 1), and they were significantly different (χ2 = 67.43; df = 3; P = 0.0001). Virus acquisition by first-instar larvae and transmission by adults yielded the highest transmission efficiency (76.7%). This was the treatment with the longest latent period (about 10 d). The transmission efficiencies of adult females and males were 71.4% and 81.3%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between them (χ2 = 0.40; df = 1; P = 0.53). When the virus was acquired by first-instar larvae and transmitted by second-instar larvae, the transmission efficiency was 3.3% (Ps = 0.7%). Adult thrips transmitted WSMoV with low efficiency when the virus was acquired at the second-instar larval or adult stages (3.3% and 6.7%, respectively), and they were not significantly different (χ2 = 0.35; df = 1; P = 0.55). Virus-infected source leaves were subjected to RT-PCR assay after the end of the AAP, and all tested positive for WSMoV. The results suggest that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent manner and the virus is mainly transmitted by adults, having being ingested during the first-instar larval stage.

Virus infection in T. palmi

Organs of T. palmi were dissected and examined with an immunofluorescence assay to verify WSMoV infection within various tissues (Figs 1 and 2). The confocal images of non-viruliferous and WSMoV-infected T. palmi are representative images from 12 non-viruliferous and 19 viruliferous thrips examined in this study. The alimentary tract of T. palmi is divided into the foregut, midgut, and hindgut, with the midgut is further divided into midgut 1, midgut 2, and midgut 3 (Fig 1). No Alexa Fluor 555 signal was detected in the organs of non-viruliferous thrips (Fig 1). The fluorescence signal of Alexa Fluor 555, indicating WSMoV infection, was detected in the primary salivary glands, foregut, midgut, hindgut and Malpighian tubules (Fig 2A–2D), but not in the ovaries (Fig 2E) of viruliferous thrips. The results demonstrate that WSMoV infects the primary salivary glands, foregut, midgut, hindgut and Malpighian tubules of T. palmi adults that acquired the virus during the first-instar larval stage.

Fig 1. Indirect immunofluorescence detection of watermelon silver mottle virus (WSMoV) in non-viruliferous Thrips palmi.

Fig 1

(A) Nuclei of cells stained with the DNA selective dye DAPI. (B) No WSMoV antigen detected. (C) Actin stained with phalloidin conjugated with Alexa Fluor 633. (D) Merged image, indicating that no WSMoV antigen was detected in the alimentary tract. WSMoV antigen was detected using rabbit antiserum against WSMoV nucleocapsid protein and a secondary antibody conjugated with Alexa Fluor 555. Actin was stained to delineate cell boundaries and tissue types. The confocal image depicting alimentary tract of a thrips is a representative image from 12 non-viruliferous thrips examined in this study. FG: foregut, MG: midgut, HG: hindgut. Arrowheads point to Malpighian tubules. Scale bar = 250 μm.

Fig 2. Indirect immunofluorescence detection of WSMoV in viruliferous T. palmi.

Fig 2

WSMoV antigen was detected using rabbit antiserum against WSMoV nucleocapsid protein and a secondary antibody conjugated with Alexa Fluor 555. The DNA selective dye DAPI was used to stain the cells’ nuclei. Actin was stained with phalloidin conjugated with Alexa Fluor 633. (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) are organs of five different thrips, and a total of 19 viruliferous thrips were examined in this study. PSG: primary salivary gland, FG: foregut, MG: midgut, HG: hindgut, OV: ovariole. Arrowheads point to Malpighian tubules. Scale bars = 50 μm.

Virus replication in T. palmi

To confirm the replication of WSMoV in viruliferous thrips, the vcRNA corresponding to the NSm gene (on the M segment) and the NSs gene (on the S segment) of WSMoV were detected by two-step RT-PCR. Fragments of the NSm and NSs genes were amplified from the total RNA extracted from viruliferous thrips and WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves (Fig 3). Identities of the PCR products were confirmed by DNA sequencing and BLASTn searches. The sequences of partial NSm and NSs genes were 100% identical to WSMoV isolate DD6 the M and S segments in GenBank (accession numbers DQ157768 and AY864852, respectively). The presence of the vcRNA of NSm and NSs genes in viruliferous thrips implies the replication of WSMoV in viruliferous T. palmi.

Fig 3. Agarose gel electrophoresis analysis of viral complementary RNA (vcRNA) corresponding to (A) NSm and (B) NSs genes of WSMoV in viruliferous T. palmi.

Fig 3

vcRNA was reverse-transcribed to cDNA, and then the cDNA was amplified by PCR. Lanes: L, 1 kb DNA ladder; 1–3, viruliferous females; 4–6, viruliferous males; 7, non-viruliferous female; 8, non-viruliferous male; 9, WSMoV-infected watermelon leaf.

To further confirm the replication of WSMoV in viruliferous thrips, WSMoV NSs protein was detected by western blotting in female and male thrips. A protein with a molecular size of about 50 kDa was identified in the protein extract of viruliferous thrips and WSMoV-infected watermelon leaves (Fig 4). The presence of the NSs protein in viruliferous thrips confirms the replication of WSMoV in viruliferous T. palmi.

Fig 4. Western blot analysis of WSMoV NSs protein in viruliferous T. palmi.

Fig 4

NSs protein with a molecular size of about 50 kDa was detected from the protein extract of viruliferous thrips. Western blotting of Actin in T. palmi was conducted as loading control. Lanes: 1, 20 viruliferous females; 2, 20 viruliferous males; 3, 20 non-viruliferous females; 4, 20 non-viruliferous males; 5, WSMoV-infected watermelon leaf. Arrowheads point to NSs protein.

Discussion

To examine the competence of a thrips species to act as a vector of a given tospovirus, most studies have suggested that the thrips must acquire the virus at the larval stage and transmit it at the adult stage. For example, TSWV is ingested by first-instar larvae and transmitted by adults of F. occidentalis, F. schultzei, F. intonsa, T. tabaci [14], F. fusca [13], F. bispinosa [17], and F. cephalica [18]. Similarly, INSV is ingested by first-instar larvae and transmitted by adults of F. occidentalis and F. intonsa [14, 31]. Thrips palmi is the only identified vector of WSMoV [6]. Because Chen et al. [38] proposed that T. palmi transmits WSMoV both non-persistently and persistently, we reexamined the transmission mode of WSMoV. In this study, we conducted a series of experiments to examine whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV non-persistently, semi-persistently, or persistently.

Thrips palmi most efficiently transmitted WSMoV with an AAP of 48 h at the first-instar larval stage followed by a 10-d latent period until emergence of adults, and an IAP of 48 h at the adult stage (Table 1). WSMoV was not transmitted by T. palmi non-persistently, and the probability of a single thrips transmitting the virus was less than 1.4% for semi-persistent transmission (Table 1). The transmission efficiency of adult thrips is influenced by the larval stage at which the tospovirus is acquired from infected plant tissues [8]. The “developmental-stage dependent virus acquisition” of WSMoV transmission by T. palmi is in line with other tospoviruses transmitted by vector thrips. Transmission of capsicum chlorosis virus (CaCV) and TSWV by thrips is also developmental-stage dependent [24, 39].

According to the characteristics of the different transmission modes [23], our data demonstrate that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent-propagative mode. When T. palmi acquired WSMoV at the first-instar larval stage, the virus eventually infected various tissues of the adult thrips, including the salivary glands (Fig 2). This is consistent with results showing that T. palmi transmitted WSMoV at the adult stage. The detection of vcRNA and NSs protein in viruliferous T. palmi (Figs 3 and 4) also implies the replication of WSMoV in the vector thrips. This knowledge is consistent with previous studies on TSWV, which was found to be transmitted by several thrips species in a persistent-propagative mode [8].

Our data demonstrate that when WSMoV is acquired at the first-instar larval stage, it is accumulated in the foregut, midgut, hindgut, Malpighian tubules, and salivary glands of T. palmi adults (Fig 2). Previous histological studies, mainly focused on TSWV transmitted by other thrips, have described TSWV infecting the foregut, midgut, Malpighian tubules, and salivary glands in T. setosus, F. occidentalis, and T. tabaci [15, 27, 28, 40]. The dissemination dynamics of TSWV is very similar in these three thrips species. TSWV infects the proximal midgut region, second and third midgut regions, and foregut sequentially, and lastly infects the salivary glands [15, 27, 28]. Wijkamp et al. [41] demonstrated that TSWV replicates in the salivary glands of F. occidentalis; the virus particles mature in the salivary vesicles and then are transported to the salivary ducts. Competent thrips species support the replication of tospoviruses and eject virus particles into the plant through their saliva.

In this study, we also compared sexual differences in the transmission efficiency of WSMoV by T. palmi. There was no significant difference in the transmission efficiency between adult females and males. Similar results have been reported in the transmission of INSV by F. occidentalis [31], CaCV by Ceratothripoides claratris [39] and Hippeastrum chlorotic ringspot virus by Taeniothrips eucharii [11]. In contrast, the transmission efficiency of TSWV varies between females and males of F. occidentalis [4245], F. cephalica [18], and T. tabaci [46]. A sexual difference in transmission efficiency was also reported in the transmission of INSV by F. intonsa [31]. In the aforementioned cases, adult males transmit tospovirus more efficiently than adult females. Males of F. occidentalis have higher mobility but feed less frequently and intensively than females; thus, males cause less damage to the plant cells, but make more effective inoculation punctures than females [43]. Furthermore, males of F. occidentalis infected with TSWV feed more frequently and perform more non-ingestion probes than uninfected males [47]. This may explain the different transmission efficiencies of TSWV between the sexes in F. occidentalis; however, it is unclear whether this is the case in other thrips species. Studies on the activity and feeding behavior of females and males of T. palmi may help to address this question.

Our results clarify that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent-propagative mode, and not in a non-persistent or semi-persistent manner. The virus is mainly transmitted by adult thrips, after being ingested in the first-instar larval stage. TSWV was proven to be transmitted by several thrips species in a persistent-propagative mode [8]. Although most tospoviruses have not been tested for non-persistent or semi-persistent transmission modes, they are confirmed as persistently transmitted viruses with their corresponding vector thrips. Since WSMoV and TSWV are not phylogenetically closely related, and neither are their vectors T. palmi and F. occidentalis, there is a high probability that all tospoviruses are transmitted in a persistent-propagative mode and have “developmental-stage dependent virus acquisition” for their vector transmission. It also fits the hypothesis that the mode of plant virus transmission is a stable evolutionary trait that is always the same for a given virus genus [48]. The results of this study make a significant contribution to understanding of the transmission biology of tospoviruses in general.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Transmission mode and transmission rate of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi.

(PDF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Alexander C. Barton and Reina L. Tong for editing this manuscript. We also thank the Joint Center for Instruments and Researches, College of Bioresources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University for equipment support of the confocal microscope.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (grant number NSC 100-2321-B-002-035-MY3). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mumford RA, Barker I, Wood KR. The biology of tospoviruses. Ann Appl Biol. 1996;128(1): 159–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Persley DM, Thomas JE, Sharman M. Tospoviruses–an Australian perspective. Australas Plant Pathol. 2006;35: 161–180. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pappu HR, Jones RAC, Jain RK. Global status of tospovirus epidemics in diverse cropping systems: Successes achieved and challenges ahead. Virus Res. 2009;141: 219–236. 10.1016/j.virusres.2009.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Riley DG, Joseph SV, Srinivasan R, Diffie S. Thrips vectors of tospoviruses. J Integr Pest Manag. 2011;1(2): I1–I10. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iwaki M, Honda Y, Hanada K, Tochihara H, Yonaha T, Hokama K, et al. Silver mottle disease of watermelon caused by tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Dis. 1984;68(11): 1006–1008. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yeh SD, Lin YC, Cheng YH, Jih CL, Chen MJ, Chen CC. Identification to tomato spotted wilt-like virus on watermelon in Taiwan. Plant Dis. 1992;76(8): 835–840. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abudurexiti A, Adkins S, Alioto D, Alkhovsky SV, Avšič-Županc T, Ballinger MJ, et al. Taxonomy of the order Bunyavirales: update 2019. Arch Virol. 2019;164: 1949–1965. 10.1007/s00705-019-04253-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rotenberg D, Jacobson AL, Schneweis DJ, Whitfield AE. Thrips transmission of tospoviruses. Curr Opin Virol. 2015;15: 80–89. 10.1016/j.coviro.2015.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mound LA. So many thrips–so few tospoviruses? In: Marullo R, Mound L, editors. Thrips and Tospoviruses: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium of Thysanoptera; 2001 Jul 2–7; Reggio Calabria, Italy. Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection; 2002. pp. 15–18.
  • 10.Han J, Nalam VJ, Yu IC, Nachappa P. Vector competence of thrips species to transmit soybean vein necrosis virus. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 431. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xu Y, Gao X, Jia Z, Li W, Hu J, Li Y, et al. Identification of Taeniothrips eucharii (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a vector of Hippeastrum chlorotic ringspot virus in Southern China. Plant Dis. 2017;101(9): 1597–1600. 10.1094/PDIS-01-17-0045-RE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhou J, Tzanetakis IE. Epidemiology of soybean vein necrosis-associated virus. Phytopathology. 2013;103(9): 966–971. 10.1094/PHYTO-12-12-0322-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sakimura K. Frankliniella fusca, an additional vector for the tomato spotted wilt virus, with notes on Thrips tabaci, another vector. Phytopathology. 1963; 53(4): 412–415. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wijkamp I, Almarza N, Goldbach R, Peters D. Distinct levels of specificity in thrips transmission of tospoviruses. Phytopathology. 1995;85(10): 1069–1074. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsuda S, Fujisawa I, Ohnishi J, Hosokawa D, Tomaru K. Localization of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus in larvae and pupae of the insect vector Thrips setosus. Phytopathology. 1996;86(11): 1199–1203. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nagata T, Almeida ACL, Resende RO, de Ávila AC. The competence of four thrips species to transmit and replicate four tospoviruses. Plant Pathol. 2004;53: 136–140. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Avila Y, Stavisky J, Hague S, Funderburk J, Reitz S, Momol T. Evaluation of Frankliniella bispinosa (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a vector of the Tomato spotted wilt virus in pepper. Fla Entomol. 2006;89(2): 204–207. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ohnishi J, Katsuzaki H, Tsuda S, Sakurai T, Akutsu K, Murai T. Frankliniella cephalica, a new vector for Tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Dis. 2006;90: 685. 10.1094/PD-90-0685B [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mandal B, Pappu HR, Culbreath AK. Factors affecting mechanical transmission of Tomato spotted wilt virus to peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Plant Dis. 2001;85: 1259–1263. 10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.12.1259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crowley NC. Studies on the seed transmission of plant virus diseases. Aust J Biol Sci. 1957;10(4): 449–464. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Golnaraghi AR, Pourrahim R, Farzadfar S, Ohshima K, Shahraeen N, Ahoonmanesh A. Incidence and distribution of Tomato yellow fruit ring virus on soybean in Iran. Plant Pathol J. 2007;6(1): 14–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ng JCK, Falk BW. Virus-vector interactions mediating nonpersistent and semipersistent transmission of plant viruses. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2006; 44: 183–212. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hogenhout SA, Ammar ED, Whitfield AE, Redinbaugh MG. Insect vector interactions with persistently transmitted viruses. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2008; 46: 327–359. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.022508.092135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.van de Wetering F, Goldbach R, Peters D. Tomato spotted wilt tospovirus ingestion by first instar larvae of Frankliniella occidentalis is a prerequisite for transmission. Phytopathology. 1996;86(9): 900–905. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ullman DE, German TL, Sherwood JL, Westcot DM, Cantone FA. Tospovirus replication in insect vector cells: Immunocytochemical evidence that the nonstructural protein encoded by the S RNA of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus is present in thrips vector cells. Phytopathology. 1993;83(4): 456–463. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wijkamp I, van Lent J, Kormelink R, Goldbach R, Peters D. Multiplication of tomato spotted wilt virus in its insect vector, Frankliniella occidentalis. J Gen Virol. 1993;74(3): 341–349. 10.1099/0022-1317-74-3-341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nagata T, Inoue-Nagata AK, Smid HM, Goldbach R, Peters D. Tissue tropism related to vector competence of Frankliniella occidentalis for tomato spotted wilt tospovirus. J Gen Virol. 1999;80: 507–515. 10.1099/0022-1317-80-2-507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kritzman A, Gera A, Raccah B, van Lent JWM, Peters D. The route of tomato spotted wilt virus inside the thrips body in relation to transmission efficiency. Arch Virol. 2002;147(11): 2143–2156. 10.1007/s00705-002-0871-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wijkamp I, Goldbach R, Peters D. Propagation of tomato spotted wilt virus in Frankliniella occidentalis does neither result in pathological effects nor in transovarial passage of the virus. Entomol Exp Appl. 1996;81: 285–292. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nagata T, de Ávila AC. Transmission of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus, a recently discovered tospovirus, by two thrips species. J Phytopathol. 2000;148(2): 123–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sakurai T, Inoue T, Tsuda S. Distinct efficiencies of Impatiens necrotic spot virus transmission by five thrips vector species (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) of tospoviruses in Japan. Appl Entomol and Zool. 2004;39(1): 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oliver JE, Whitfield AE. The genus Tospovirus: Emerging bunyaviruses that threaten food security. Annu Rev Virol. 2016;3: 101–124. 10.1146/annurev-virology-100114-055036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen WT, Tseng CH, Tsai CW. Effect of Watermelon silver mottle virus on the life history and feeding preference of Thrips palmi. PLoS One. 2014;9(7): e102021. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Montero-Astúa M, Ullman DE, Whitfield AE. Salivary gland morphology, tissue tropism and the progression of tospovirus infection in Frankliniella occidentalis. Virology. 2016;493: 39–51. 10.1016/j.virol.2016.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Whitefield AE, Ullman DE, German TL. Tospovirus-thrips interactions. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43: 459–489. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.040204.140017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mahmood T, Yang PC. Western blot: technique, theory, and trouble shooting. N Am J Med Sci. 2012; 4(9): 429–434. 10.4103/1947-2714.100998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Swallow WH. Group testing for estimating infection rates and probabilities of disease transmission. Phytopathology. 1985;75(8): 882–889. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen CC, Yeh SD, Hsu HT. Acquisition, incubation and transmission of Watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi. Acta Hortic. 2006;722: 83–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Premachandra WTSD, Borgemeister C, Maiss E, Knierim D, Poehling HM. Ceratothripoides claratris, a new vector of a Capsicum chlorosis virus isolate infecting tomato in Thailand. Phytopathology. 2005:95(6): 659–663. 10.1094/PHYTO-95-0659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Badillo-Vargas IE, Chen Y, Martin KM, Rotenberg D, Whitfield AE. Discovery of novel thrips vector proteins that bind to the viral attachment protein of the plant bunyavirus tomato spotted wilt virus. J Virol. 2019;93(21): e00699–19. 10.1128/JVI.00699-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wijkamp I, Peters D. Determination of the median latent period of two tospoviruses in Frankliniella occidentalis, using a novel leaf disk assay. Phytopathology. 1993;83(9): 986–991. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sakurai T, Murai T, Maeda T, Tsumuki H. Sexual differences in transmission and accumulation of tomato spotted wilt virus in its insect vector Frankliniella occidentatis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Appl Entomol Zool. 1998;3(4): 583–588. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.van de Wetering F, Hulshof J, Posthuma K, Harrewijn P, Goldbach R, Peters D. Distinct feeding behavior between sexes of Frankliniella occidentalis results in higher scar production and lower tospovirus transmission by females. Entomol Exp Appl. 1998;88(1): 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.van de Wetering F, van der Hoek M., Goldbach R, Peters D. Differences in tomato spotted wilt virus vector competency between males and females of Frankliniella occidentalis. Entomol Exp Appl. 1999;93(1): 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ogada PA, Peopling HM. Sex-specific influences of Frankliniella occidentalis (western flower thrips) in the transmission of Tomato spotted wilt virus (Tospovirus). J Plant Dis Protect. 2015;122(5/6): 264–274. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chatzivassiliou EK, Nagata T, Katis NI, Peters D. The transmission of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus by Thrips tabaci populations originating from leek. Plant Pathol. 1999;48(6): 700–706. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Stafford CA, Walker GP, Ullman DE. Infection with a plant virus modifies vector feeding behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(23): 9350–9355. 10.1073/pnas.1100773108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nault LR. Arthropod transmission of plant viruses: A new synthesis. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1997;90(5): 521–541. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

12 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-21623

Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsai,

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.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two external reviewers. Please, see that Reviewer #2 raised major concerns regarding to experiments, data analyses and conclusions drawn in the manuscript and rejected its publication. However, considering the scientific contribution of this manuscript, we would like to offer you a chance to resolve the issues raised by this reviewer and we recommend you to make a major revision of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

**********

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: No

**********

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 entitled “Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi” improves our understanding on the transmission mode of a Tospovirus of global importance. It is well written and it provides relevant information on the ecology of the disease triangle (watermelon- WSMoV-Thrips palmi).

However, I have two major concerns. The first one relates to data analysis. There is a lack of information on the statistical methods used. Only when looking at the results, authors report that they performed logistic regression (253-255). This should be further explained in the materials and methods section, describing the modelling approach, factors taken into consideration, variables and the statistical package used. Also, Table 1 would benefit from reporting sample sizes (I guess from the methods that authors used n=30 per assay, but it is useful to see it already in the table, especially if some replicates were lost).

My second major point relates to the status of T. palmi as the only vector of the virus. References 5) and 6) state that this species transmits WSMoV, but, to my knowledge, there are no studies looking at the range of potential vectors that could transmit the virus. In this sense, the argument in lines 64-66 may be misleading. In these sentences, it seems like F. occidentalis is not a potential vector of WSMoV, while this may well be, giving the ability of this thrips species to transmit a wide range of tospoviruses. Additionally (Chiemsombat et al. Arch Virol (2008) 153:571–577 DOI: 10.1007/s00705-007-0024-3 ) suggested that another thrips species (Scritothrips dorsalis) could potentially vector the virus. I would encourage authors to further explore this aspect in their text.

In lines 335-336 authors suggest that there is a disagreement between their findings and those of Chen et al. 2006. I would recommend to expand the discussion on mechanical transmission of WSMoV, for example by addressing the following question: What are the different methodologies and findings between the current and previously published work on transmission mechanisms (Chen et al. 2006)?

Few minor points:

-line 98: 150 mesh: please, provide the number of threads/cm2 or the area of the opening.

-line 184: Potential viruliferous or “potentially viruliferous”?

-line 227: In the era of Open Access, are authors going to deposit their sequences in the public database of ncbi?

-line 332: Additionally, Frankliniella fusca is a major vector of TSWV in peanuts, for example.

Reviewer #2: The authors aimed to empirically determine the transmission mode of WSMoV, an orthotospovirus, by Thrips palmi, the reported thrips vector of this plant virus. The type member of the genus orthotospovirus (tomato spotted wilt virus) is transmitted by other thrips vectors in a persistent - propagative manner, meaning that the virus replicates in the vector and disseminates from the midgut to the salivary glands prior to inoculation of plants. As such, the authors performed various transmission experiments with various parameters to distinguish some transmission modes, along with confocal laser scanning microscopy of immunofluorescent detection of WSMoV nucleocapsid (N) protein (structural protein) to document the presence of the viral protein in adult thrips tissues known to be associated with orthotospovirus infection.

Major Concerns:

1. The authors rationalize that endpoint RT-PCR detection of complementary RNA of the NSs or NSm genes is evidence of replication of WSMoV. While it is correct that amplification of the viral complement (vc) of NSs (S genome segment) or NSm (M genome segment) is suggestive of replication (these viral proteins are translated from subgenomic virus sense mRNA), it is not conclusive of replication because it has been reported in foundational studies that the vc of M and/or S RNA segments of TSWV and other orthotospoviruses (e.g., INSV) can be encapsidated in the virion [VIROLOGY 188, 732-741 (1992) (Law et al); Journal of General Virology (1992), 73, 687-693 (Kormelink et al)]. As such, to be rigorous, it is strongly recommended that the authors perform additional experiments to definitively show replication of WSMoV in Thrips palmi - such as evidence of NSs or NSm protein in the thrips vector using western blot analysis or immunolocalization in tissues with antibodies to these nonstructural viral proteins, because to produce these nonstructural proteins, the S and M RNAs must be replicated into full length vc strands followed by mRNA synthesis. The authors chose to use antibodies to the N protein (structural protein) in their confocal microscopy observation of virus in thrips tissues, so they clearly have the skills to dissect and fix thrips tissues and to perform and analyze confocal microscope images. It is recommended they perform these tissue dissections and immunofluorescence with antibodies to NSs or NSm. Also, use of real-time quantitative RT-PCR of NSs and NSm to estimate virus accumulation (increase) over time after removal of viral inoculum may also support their conclusions.

2. The introduction is missing key elements to help the reader understand the logic and rationale of the objective/subobjectives of the study. There is no mention of the genome organization of WSMoV or other orthotospoviruses, which would help readers understand the authors' approach. WSMoV genome is deposited in NCBI Genbank. There is no clear description of possible transmission modes - nonpersistent, semipersistent, persistent non-propagative, persistent-propagative - that set the stage for the acquisition-inoculation experiments. Along these lines, a description of factors that vector biologists use to distinguish transmission modes (i.e., time of virus exposure (AAP), time to virus delivery (IAP), latent period, frequency of inoculation, accumulationo of virions and/or nonstructural proteins). It is unclear to the reader how the authors differentiate or identify the different modes of transmission, and therefore the manuscript would benefit from a clear description in the introduction. And, on lines 87 - 90, there is mention of phylogenetic analysis of N aa sequences between WSMoV and TSWV, but there is no clear logic as to why this is mentioned or relevant to the study.

3. Lines 78 - 86. The assertion that published studies make assumptions about orthotospovirus transmission biology based on TSWV is not fairly supported. In fact, several of the references cited by the authors on line 82 have examined transmission and accumulation of viral protein (nonstructural) of other tospoviruses and different thrips species. It is strongly suggested that this assertion and text be modified to accurately reflect the knowledge of transmission modes of orthotospoviruses and to temper the language as to not offend experts in the field. Along this line, the authors missed a recent study that documented vector competence of another orthotospovirus, soybean vein necrosis virus (SVNV) by soybean thrips (Neohydatothrips variabilis) that carried out the appropriate steps (testing different AAPs and IAPs and confocal microscopy to trace tissue tropism in the vector) to determine transmission - no assumptions were made.

In addition, it seems odd that members of this author group published unrelated research with this vector (T. palmi) and orthotospovirus species (WSMoV) and appeared to work out the AAP and IAP for their experiments (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102021). They produced WSMoV-infected plants under the presumption that L1s acquire the virus (24 hour AAP) and adults transmit (IAP), so it would appear that in this previous paper, the authors presumed that WSMoV is transmitted in the same manner as a persistent virus like TSWV (virus acquired as young L1s, virus retained after molting and pupation, adults inoculate plants).

4. Lack of statistical analysis section for handling transmission data. The authors mention 'logistic regression' (line 255) of the transmission efficiency data in Table 1, but how did the authors handle the three independent experiments, were data pooled, what was the statistical model tested, were assumptions met? Please devote a few lines to describing the value of the 'Swallow estimator' and why it was used here.

Minor comment: The writing could be improved throughout; there were several awkward clauses and ambiguous language.

**********

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

[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. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247500.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Dec 2020

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi” improves our understanding on the transmission mode of a Tospovirus of global importance. It is well written and it provides relevant information on the ecology of the disease triangle (watermelon- WSMoV-Thrips palmi).

However, I have two major concerns. The first one relates to data analysis. There is a lack of information on the statistical methods used. Only when looking at the results, authors report that they performed logistic regression (253-255). This should be further explained in the materials and methods section, describing the modelling approach, factors taken into consideration, variables and the statistical package used. Also, Table 1 would benefit from reporting sample sizes (I guess from the methods that authors used n=30 per assay, but it is useful to see it already in the table, especially if some replicates were lost).

Response: We consulted a statistician, and the data were analyzed again. The information of statistical analyses was explained in the materials and methods section. Sample sizes were added in Table 1 as suggested.

My second major point relates to the status of T. palmi as the only vector of the virus. References 5) and 6) state that this species transmits WSMoV, but, to my knowledge, there are no studies looking at the range of potential vectors that could transmit the virus. In this sense, the argument in lines 64-66 may be misleading. In these sentences, it seems like F. occidentalis is not a potential vector of WSMoV, while this may well be, giving the ability of this thrips species to transmit a wide range of tospoviruses. Additionally (Chiemsombat et al. Arch Virol (2008) 153:571–577 DOI: 10.1007/s00705-007-0024-3) suggested that another thrips species (Scritothrips dorsalis) could potentially vector the virus. I would encourage authors to further explore this aspect in their text.

Response: There are no published researches studying the range of potential vectors of WSMoV, so we have rewritten the sentences. Also, there are no studies investigating vector competence of F. occidentalis to transmit WSMoV. Chiemsombat et al. (2008) only mentioned that “the ability of these two thrips species to transmit different tospoviruses in Thailand needs further investigation,” but no experiments were performed; therefore, we decide not to cite the paper.

In lines 335-336 authors suggest that there is a disagreement between their findings and those of Chen et al. 2006. I would recommend to expand the discussion on mechanical transmission of WSMoV, for example by addressing the following question: What are the different methodologies and findings between the current and previously published work on transmission mechanisms (Chen et al. 2006)?

Response: Chen et al. (2006) proposed that T. palmi transmits WSMoV both non-persistently and persistently; however, it is not in line with our understanding of virus transmission mode. We evaluated the methods of their experiments and found they were okay. Therefore, we decided to conduct a series of experiments to examine whether T. palmi transmits WSMoV non-persistently, semi-persistently, or persistently. Finally, our results clarify that T. palmi transmits WSMoV in a persistent-propagative mode, and not in a non-persistent or semi-persistent manner.

Few minor points:

-line 98: 150 mesh: please, provide the number of threads/cm2 or the area of the opening.

Response: The information (pore size 160 μm) was added as suggested.

-line 184: Potential viruliferous or “potentially viruliferous”?

Response: It was corrected.

-line 227: In the era of Open Access, are authors going to deposit their sequences in the public database of ncbi?

Response: The sequences of partial NSm and NSs genes were 100% identical to WSMoV isolate DD6 the M and S segments in GenBank (accession numbers DQ157768 and AY864852, respectively). The information was added in the text.

-line 332: Additionally, Frankliniella fusca is a major vector of TSWV in peanuts, for example.

Response: Thank you for providing the reference. We have added the information and cited the paper (Sakimura, 1963. Phytopathology).

Reviewer #2: The authors aimed to empirically determine the transmission mode of WSMoV, an orthotospovirus, by Thrips palmi, the reported thrips vector of this plant virus. The type member of the genus orthotospovirus (tomato spotted wilt virus) is transmitted by other thrips vectors in a persistent - propagative manner, meaning that the virus replicates in the vector and disseminates from the midgut to the salivary glands prior to inoculation of plants. As such, the authors performed various transmission experiments with various parameters to distinguish some transmission modes, along with confocal laser scanning microscopy of immunofluorescent detection of WSMoV nucleocapsid (N) protein (structural protein) to document the presence of the viral protein in adult thrips tissues known to be associated with orthotospovirus infection.

Major Concerns:

1. The authors rationalize that endpoint RT-PCR detection of complementary RNA of the NSs or NSm genes is evidence of replication of WSMoV. While it is correct that amplification of the viral complement (vc) of NSs (S genome segment) or NSm (M genome segment) is suggestive of replication (these viral proteins are translated from subgenomic virus sense mRNA), it is not conclusive of replication because it has been reported in foundational studies that the vc of M and/or S RNA segments of TSWV and other orthotospoviruses (e.g., INSV) can be encapsidated in the virion [VIROLOGY 188, 732-741 (1992) (Law et al); Journal of General Virology (1992), 73, 687-693 (Kormelink et al)]. As such, to be rigorous, it is strongly recommended that the authors perform additional experiments to definitively show replication of WSMoV in Thrips palmi - such as evidence of NSs or NSm protein in the thrips vector using western blot analysis or immunolocalization in tissues with antibodies to these nonstructural viral proteins, because to produce these nonstructural proteins, the S and M RNAs must be replicated into full length vc strands followed by mRNA synthesis. The authors chose to use antibodies to the N protein (structural protein) in their confocal microscopy observation of virus in thrips tissues, so they clearly have the skills to dissect and fix thrips tissues and to perform and analyze confocal microscope images. It is recommended they perform these tissue dissections and immunofluorescence with antibodies to NSs or NSm. Also, use of real-time quantitative RT-PCR of NSs and NSm to estimate virus accumulation (increase) over time after removal of viral inoculum may also support their conclusions.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the detection of complementary RNA of the NSs and NSm genes is not conclusive of virus replication. Therefore, we performed western blot analysis of NSs protein in viruliferous thrips to demonstrate the replication of WSMoV in Thrips palmi (Fig. 4).

2. The introduction is missing key elements to help the reader understand the logic and rationale of the objective/subobjectives of the study. There is no mention of the genome organization of WSMoV or other orthotospoviruses, which would help readers understand the authors' approach. WSMoV genome is deposited in NCBI Genbank. There is no clear description of possible transmission modes - nonpersistent, semipersistent, persistent non-propagative, persistent-propagative - that set the stage for the acquisition-inoculation experiments. Along these lines, a description of factors that vector biologists use to distinguish transmission modes (i.e., time of virus exposure (AAP), time to virus delivery (IAP), latent period, frequency of inoculation, accumulation of virions and/or nonstructural proteins). It is unclear to the reader how the authors differentiate or identify the different modes of transmission, and therefore the manuscript would benefit from a clear description in the introduction. And, on lines 87 - 90, there is mention of phylogenetic analysis of N aa sequences between WSMoV and TSWV, but there is no clear logic as to why this is mentioned or relevant to the study.

Response: The background information of transmission mode of insect transmitted plant viruses was added in the introduction section. The phylogenetic analysis of amino acid sequences of WSMoV and TSWV N proteins demonstrates that WSMoV is distantly related to TSWV. Our objective was to examine the transmission mode of a virus that is distantly related to well-studied prototype, TSWV. We have rewritten the sentences. To avoid an overly long introduction, we did not add the description of WSMoV genome organization because the genome organization of WSMoV is the same as that of other orthotospoviruses.

3. Lines 78 - 86. The assertion that published studies make assumptions about orthotospovirus transmission biology based on TSWV is not fairly supported. In fact, several of the references cited by the authors on line 82 have examined transmission and accumulation of viral protein (nonstructural) of other tospoviruses and different thrips species. It is strongly suggested that this assertion and text be modified to accurately reflect the knowledge of transmission modes of orthotospoviruses and to temper the language as to not offend experts in the field. Along this line, the authors missed a recent study that documented vector competence of another orthotospovirus, soybean vein necrosis virus (SVNV) by soybean thrips (Neohydatothrips variabilis) that carried out the appropriate steps (testing different AAPs and IAPs and confocal microscopy to trace tissue tropism in the vector) to determine transmission - no assumptions were made.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the kind reminding. We have no intention to offend experts in this field. The paragraph addresses the fact that these studies, transmission mode of tospoviruses other than TSWV, only examined the possibility of persistent transmission but not the possibility of non-persistent and semi-persistent transmission modes. We did not mention that these studies did not demonstrate the accumulation of viral nonstructural proteins and virus replication. We have rewritten the sentences to make it more clear. We apologize for missing the recent study of SVNV (Han et al. 2019. Front. Microbiol.), and the paper was cited. However, Han et al. (2019) let first-instar larvae to acquire the virus and inoculated soybean leaf disk with adult thrips. They also did not examine the possibility of non-persistent and semi-persistent transmission modes for SVNV.

In addition, it seems odd that members of this author group published unrelated research with this vector (T. palmi) and orthotospovirus species (WSMoV) and appeared to work out the AAP and IAP for their experiments (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102021). They produced WSMoV-infected plants under the presumption that L1s acquire the virus (24 hour AAP) and adults transmit (IAP), so it would appear that in this previous paper, the authors presumed that WSMoV is transmitted in the same manner as a persistent virus like TSWV (virus acquired as young L1s, virus retained after molting and pupation, adults inoculate plants).

Response: That's right. We presumed that vector transmission of WSMoV is the same as that of TSWV in our previous published paper. Examined thrips acquired the virus at L1 stage and transmitted the virus after emergence as adults. We thought that the transmission of WSMoV needs to be examined in details, and this was our motivation for this research.

4. Lack of statistical analysis section for handling transmission data. The authors mention 'logistic regression' (line 255) of the transmission efficiency data in Table 1, but how did the authors handle the three independent experiments, were data pooled, what was the statistical model tested, were assumptions met? Please devote a few lines to describing the value of the 'Swallow estimator' and why it was used here.

Response: We consulted a statistician, and the data were analyzed again. The information of statistical analyses was explained in the materials and methods section. Swallow estimator was used to estimate the probability that a single thrips transmits the virus when groups of thrips were used for virus inoculation. The information was moved to Statistical analyses section in the materials and methods.

Minor comment: The writing could be improved throughout; there were several awkward clauses and ambiguous language.

Response: English is not our native language, so the manuscript has been edited by a native speaker, Ms. Reina L. Tong, in the submitted version. The revised manuscript has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

2 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-21623R1

Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsai,

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.

==============================

Congratulations for this new version of this manuscript, but before acceptance I would like to ask you to please address the minor details suggested by the reviewers. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #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: No

**********

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: I would like to acknowledge that authors addressed well my previous comments to the manuscript entitled “Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi”. I have only two considerations in relation to the section of statistics and table 1.

Authors use reference number 38 (Chen et al. 2006) to refer to the calculations of the Swallow estimator (line 266) However, based on the list provided, it is likely that the reference that correspond to the definition of this estimator is number 37 (Swallow, 1985). Therefore, I would suggest to correct the numbering of the reference list and to double check that all the references are in agreement with the statements in the text.

In addition, in table 1, there is one cell in the column “Ps” that remains empty. This corresponds to thrips that acquired the virus as first instar larvae and transmitted as adults. I would encourage authors to also provide this value to complete the information. Also, the formula of Ps could be added to the figure footnotes so that readers can figure out the meaning of this parameter.

Reviewer #2: The authors responded adequately to my comments in the narrative and in performing the additional experiments to provide more supportive evidence for persistent/propagative (viral replication) transmission of WSMoV by T. palmi. This study provides a thorough examination of this orthotospovirus/thrips vector transmission mode. The revised manuscript is more clearly written and presented logically (the rationale for the study is clearly stated in this version), and it contains sufficient background and description of methodology to evaluate the significance of the study

Below are a few minor comments to address in the final revision:

Figures and figure legends.

Figures should stand alone with the use of legends, meaning, the reader should not have to revisit the paper methodologies to fully evaluate and comprehend the content of the figure.

Thus figure legends should include pertinent information:

In both figure 1 and 2 legends, there is no mention of the viral protein detected by the antibody: N or Nsm or Nss? The reader should know this from the legends.

Also, in Figure 2, are the five panels in each column showing a different independent sample, eg. A, E, I, M and Q are internal organs of five different individuals from how many of the repeated experiments? Or a different part of the same tissue of one individual in each column?

Since the authors labeled each panel with letters, they must be meaningful so they should be referred to in the figure legend. Also, in the Results section where Figure 2 is reported, the reader should be told how many samples were tested and if what's depicted in Figure 2 is a representative sample.

Statistical methods section.

Statistics - data was pooled from three biological repetitions of the transmission experiment (Table 1) because authors found that "there were no significant differences of variance among them." (line 292-293). Please include the name of the statistical test performed and provide the test statistic used to assess this. Also, it is increasingly more common to provide supplementary/supportive materials with manuscripts for publication. As such, it is recommended that an excel file or word table be provided that shows % transmission data for each of the three biological repetitions to show repeatability/robustness of findings and thoroughness of the study.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247500.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Feb 2021

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: I would like to acknowledge that authors addressed well my previous comments to the manuscript entitled “Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi”. I have only two considerations in relation to the section of statistics and table 1.

Authors use reference number 38 (Chen et al. 2006) to refer to the calculations of the Swallow estimator (line 266) However, based on the list provided, it is likely that the reference that correspond to the definition of this estimator is number 37 (Swallow, 1985). Therefore, I would suggest to correct the numbering of the reference list and to double check that all the references are in agreement with the statements in the text.

Response: The citations in the manuscript are carefully double-checked.

In addition, in table 1, there is one cell in the column “Ps” that remains empty. This corresponds to thrips that acquired the virus as first instar larvae and transmitted as adults. I would encourage authors to also provide this value to complete the information. Also, the formula of Ps could be added to the figure footnotes so that readers can figure out the meaning of this parameter.

Response: Because one thrips per test plant was used for virus inoculation, there is no Swallow estimator for the cell in Table 1. The formula of Ps is added to the footnotes.

Reviewer #2: The authors responded adequately to my comments in the narrative and in performing the additional experiments to provide more supportive evidence for persistent/propagative (viral replication) transmission of WSMoV by T. palmi. This study provides a thorough examination of this orthotospovirus/thrips vector transmission mode. The revised manuscript is more clearly written and presented logically (the rationale for the study is clearly stated in this version), and it contains sufficient background and description of methodology to evaluate the significance of the study

Below are a few minor comments to address in the final revision:

Figures and figure legends.

Figures should stand alone with the use of legends, meaning, the reader should not have to revisit the paper methodologies to fully evaluate and comprehend the content of the figure.

Thus figure legends should include pertinent information:

In both figure 1 and 2 legends, there is no mention of the viral protein detected by the antibody: N or Nsm or Nss? The reader should know this from the legends.

Response: Nucleocapsid protein was detected by the antibody. Information of the antibody is added to Figures 1 and 2 legends.

Also, in Figure 2, are the five panels in each column showing a different independent sample, eg. A, E, I, M and Q are internal organs of five different individuals from how many of the repeated experiments? Or a different part of the same tissue of one individual in each column?

Since the authors labeled each panel with letters, they must be meaningful so they should be referred to in the figure legend. Also, in the Results section where Figure 2 is reported, the reader should be told how many samples were tested and if what's depicted in Figure 2 is a representative sample.

Response: Yes, they are confocal images of organs from five different individuals. Figure 2 is modified, and the figure legend is edited. In the Results section, the information is already described in the manuscript (lines 332-4).

Statistical methods section.

Statistics - data was pooled from three biological repetitions of the transmission experiment (Table 1) because authors found that "there were no significant differences of variance among them." (line 292-293). Please include the name of the statistical test performed and provide the test statistic used to assess this. Also, it is increasingly more common to provide supplementary/supportive materials with manuscripts for publication. As such, it is recommended that an excel file or word table be provided that shows % transmission data for each of the three biological repetitions to show repeatability/robustness of findings and thoroughness of the study.

Response: The statistical test performed to examine variance among 3 replicates is added (lines 304-5 and 316-8). We also add a supplementary table as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

9 Feb 2021

Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi

PONE-D-20-21623R2

Dear Dr. Tsai,

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,

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Livia Maria Silva Ataide

22 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-21623R2

Transmission mode of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi

Dear Dr. Tsai:

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. Livia Maria Silva Ataide

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 Table. Transmission mode and transmission rate of watermelon silver mottle virus by Thrips palmi.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES