Review of PM-17-0729 on ‘Bioinsecticidal effect of polygodial and drimenol derivatives

against Spodoptera frugiperda and Epilachna paenulata and Quantitative Structure-Activity

analysis’.
Overview of the Manuscript. The manuscript by Montenegro et al provides results of structure-
antifeedant activities (in feeding choice assays) of polygodial, drimenol & confertifolin
sesquiterpenoids isolated from Drimys winteri bark, and 9 & 6 previously reported structural
modifications of polygodial and drimenol, respectively, on Spodoptera frugiperda and Epilachna
paenulata (a generalist and a specialist pest respectively). In addition, 2D-QSAR modeling was
used to optimize the geometries of the compounds and a series of reactivity descriptors were
calculated and used to shed some light on the structural features associated with high antifeedant
activities.
Comments to the authors
(i) The study makes significant incremental scientific contribution to our understanding of
structural features of the sesquiterpenoids associated with antifeedant activities against the two
insects. However, the manuscript needs significant editorial improvements. For example:
 The Title: Would not use of ‘Antifeedant effects’ rather than ‘Bioinsecticidal effect’
better capture the focus of the study? Moreover, does ‘Quantitative Structure-Activity’
capture both experimental and computational aspects of the study? Antifeedant assays
were also quantitative!
 Abstract: (i) The ‘BACKGROUND’ needs to capture the major foci of the study, i.e.
‘structure-antifeedant activities of Drimys winteri sesquiterpenoids and synthetic
analogues, as well as 2D-QSAR analyses and computation of different molecular features
to identify those that are associated with high levels of antifeedant activity.
(ii) Under ‘RESULTS’, to refer the two compounds as having ‘the most
potent activity’ against S. frugiperda, and E. paenulata, respectively, may send a
distorted message! Although the two compounds showed higher activities compared to
the other analogues that were assayed, they were much less potent than azadirachtin. The
two compounds simply showed higher activities to the two pests compared to the other
analogues tested. Moreover, under this subsection, it would be appropriate to highlight
the structural features associated with their higher activities.
(iii) The ‘CONCLUSION’ subsection needs to be cautious: the study has
helped identify features in the sesquiterpenoid structures with increased antifeedant
activity to the two pests…this opens up need for further structure-activity studies to
explore possibility of identifying even more active compounds.
(ii) I would suggest that the authors seek assistance from a friend with a good command of
English and a lot experience in writing scientific manuscripts to help them upgrade the
manuscript.