Author response:
Public Reviews:
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Bansal et al. present a study on the fundamental blood and nectar feeding behaviors of the critical disease vector, Anopheles stephensi. The study encompasses not just the fundamental changes in blood feeding behaviors of the crucially understudied vector, but then uses a transcriptomic approach to identify candidate neuromodulation pathways which influence blood feeding behavior in this mosquito species. The authors then provide evidence through RNAi knockdown of candidate pathways that the neuromodulators sNPF and Rya modulate feeding either via their physiological activity in the brain alone or through joint physiological activity along the brain-gut axis (but critically not the gut alone). Overall, I found this study to be built on tractable, well-designed behavioral experiments.
Their study begins with a well-structured experiment to assess how the feeding behaviors of A. stephensi change over the course of its life history and in response to its age, mating, and oviposition status. The authors are careful and validate their experimental paradigm in the more well-studied Ae. aegypti, and are able to recapitulate the results of prior studies, which show that mating is a prerequisite for blood feeding behaviors in Ae. aegypt. Here they find A. Stephensi, like other Anopheline mosquitoes, has a more nuanced regulation of its blood and nectar feeding behaviors.
The authors then go on to show in a Y-maze olfactometer that ,to some degree, changes in blood feeding status depend on behavioral modulation to host cues, and this is not likely to be a simple change to the biting behaviors alone. I was especially struck by the swap in valence of the host cues for the blood-fed and mated individuals, which had not yet oviposited. This indicates that there is a change in behavior that is not simply desensitization to host cues while navigating in flight, but something much more exciting is happening.
The authors then use a transcriptomic approach to identify candidate genes in the blood-feeding stages of the mosquito's life cycle to identify a list of 9 candidates that have a role in regulating the host-seeking status of A. stephensi. Then, through investigations of gene knockdown of candidates, they identify the dual action of RYa and sNPF and candidate neuromodulators of host-seeking in this species. Overall, I found the experiments to be well-designed. I found the molecular approach to be sound. While I do not think the molecular approach is necessarily an all-encompassing mechanism identification (owing mostly to the fact that genetic resources are not yet available in A. stephensi as they are in other dipteran models), I think it sets up a rich line of research questions for the neurobiology of mosquito behavioral plasticity and comparative evolution of neuromodulator action.
We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed summary of our work. We thank them for their positive comments and agree with them on the shortcomings of our approach.
Strengths:
I am especially impressed by the authors' attention to small details in the course of this article. As I read and evaluated this article, I continued to think about how many crucial details could potentially have been missed if this had not been the approach. The attention to detail paid off in spades and allowed the authors to carefully tease apart molecular candidates of blood-seeking stages. The authors' top-down approach to identifying RYamide and sNPF starting from first principles behavioral experiments is especially comprehensive. The results from both the behavioral and molecular target studies will have broad implications for the vectorial capacity of this species and comparative evolution of neural circuit modulation.
We really appreciate that the reviewer has recognised the attention to detail we have tried to put, thank you!
Weaknesses:
There are a few elements of data visualizations and methodological reporting that I found confusing on a first few read-throughs. Figure 1F, for example, was initially confusing as it made it seem as though there were multiple 2-choice assays for each of the conditions. I would recommend removing the "X" marker from the x-axis to indicate the mosquitoes did not feed from either nectar, blood, or neither in order to make it clear that there was one assay in which mosquitoes had access to both food sources, and the data quantify if they took both meals, one meal, or no meals.
We thank the reviewer for flagging the schematic in figure 1F. As suggested, we have removed the “X” markers from the x-axis and revised the axis label from “choice of food” to “choice made” to better reflect what food the mosquitoes chose in the assay. For clarity, we have now also plotted the same data as stacked graphs at the bottom of Fig. 1F, which clearly shows the proportion of mosquitoes fed on each particular choice. We avoid the stacked graph as the sole representation of this data, as it does not capture the variability in the data.
I would also like to know more about how the authors achieved tissue-specific knockdown for RNAi experiments. I think this is an intriguing methodology, but I could not figure out from the methods why injections either had whole-body or abdomen-specific knockdown.
The tissue-specific knockdown (abdomen only or abdomen+head) emerged from initial standardisations where we were unable to achieve knockdown in the head unless we used higher concentrations of dsRNA and did the injections in older females. We realised that this gave us the opportunity to isolate the neuronal contribution of these neuropeptides in the phenotype produced. Further optimisations revealed that injecting dsRNA into 0-10h old females produced abdomen-specific knockdowns without affecting head expression, whereas injections into 4 days old females resulted in knockdowns in both tissues. Moreover, head knockdowns in older females required higher dsRNA concentrations, with knockdown efficiency correlating with the amount injected. In contrast, abdominal knockdowns in younger females could be achieved even with lower dsRNA amounts.
We have mentioned the knockdown conditions- time of injection and the amount dsRNA injected- for tissue-specific knockdowns in methods but realise now that it does not explain this well enough. We have now edited it to state our methodology more clearly (see lines 932-948).
I also found some interpretations of the transcriptomic to be overly broad for what transcriptomes can actually tell us about the organism's state. For example, the authors mention, "Interestingly, we found that after a blood meal, glucose is neither spent nor stored, and that the female brain goes into a state of metabolic 'sugar rest', while actively processing proteins (Figure S2B, S3)".
This would require a physiological measurement to actually know. It certainly suggests that there are changes in carbohydrate metabolism, but there are too many alternative interpretations to make this broad claim from transcriptomic data alone.
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and agree with them. We have now edited our statement to read:
“Instead, our data suggests altered carbohydrate metabolism after a blood meal, with the female brain potentially entering a state of metabolic 'sugar rest' while actively processing proteins (Figure S2B, S3). However, physiological measurements of carbohydrate and protein metabolism will be required to confirm whether glucose is indeed neither spent nor stored during this period.” See lines 271-277.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Bansal et al examine and characterize feeding behaviour in Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes. While sharing some similarities to the well-studied Aedes aegypti mosquito, the authors demonstrate that mated females, but not unmated (virgin) females, exhibit suppression in their bloodfeeding behaviour. Using brain transcriptomic analysis comparing sugar-fed, blood-fed, and starved mosquitoes, several candidate genes potentially responsible for influencing blood-feeding behaviour were identified, including two neuropeptides (short NPF and RYamide) that are known to modulate feeding behaviour in other mosquito species. Using molecular tools, including in situ hybridization, the authors map the distribution of cells producing these neuropeptides in the nervous system and in the gut. Further, by implementing systemic RNA interference (RNAi), the study suggests that both neuropeptides appear to promote blood-feeding (but do not impact sugar feeding), although the impact was observed only after both neuropeptide genes underwent knockdown.
Strengths and/or weaknesses:
Overall, the manuscript was well-written; however, the authors should review carefully, as some sections would benefit from restructuring to improve clarity. Some statements need to be rectified as they are factually inaccurate.
Below are specific concerns and clarifications needed in the opinion of this reviewer:
(1) What does "central brains" refer to in abstract and in other sections of the manuscript (including methods and results)? This term is ambiguous, and the authors should more clearly define what specific components of the central nervous system was/were used in their study.
Central brain, or mid brain, is a commonly used term to refer to brain structures/neuropils without the optic lobes (For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07686-5). In this study we have focused our analysis on the central brain circuits involved in modulating blood-feeding behaviour and have therefore excluded the optic lobes. As optic lobes account for nearly half of all the neurons in the mosquito brain (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8121336/), including them would have disproportionately skewed our transcriptomic data toward visual processing pathways.
We have indicated this in figure 3A and in the methods (see lines 800-801, 812). We have now also clarified it in the results section for neuro-transcriptomics to avoid confusion (see lines 236-237).
(2) The abstract states that two neuropeptides, sNPF and RYamide are working together, but no evidence is summarized for the latter in this section.
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now added a statement “This occurs in the context of the action of RYa in the brain” to end of the abstract, for a complete summary of our proposed model.
(3) Figure 1
Panel A: This should include mating events in the reproductive cycle to demonstrate differences in the feeding behavior of Ae. aegypti.
Our data suggest that mating can occur at any time between eclosion and oviposition in An. stephensi and between eclosion and blood feeding in Ae. aegypti. Adding these into (already busy) 1A, would cloud the purpose of the schematic, which is to indicate the time points used in the behavioural assays and transcriptomics.
Panel F: In treatments where insects were not provided either blood or sugar, how is it that some females and males had fed? Also, it is unclear why the y-axis label is % fed when the caption indicates this is a choice assay. Also, it is interesting that sugar-starved females did not increase sugar intake. Is there any explanation for this (was it expected)?
We apologise for the confusion. The experiment is indeed a choice assay in which sugar-starved or sugar-sated females, co-housed with males, were provided simultaneous access to both blood and sugar, and were assessed for the choice made (indicated on the x-axis): both blood and sugar, blood only, sugar only, or neither. The x-axis indicates the choice made by the mosquitoes, not the choice provided in the assay, and the y-axis indicates the percentage of males or females that made each particular choice. We have now removed the “X” markers from the x-axis and revised the axis label from “choice of food” to “choice made” to better reflect what food the mosquitoes chose to take.
In this assay, we scored females only for the presence or absence of each meal type (blood or sugar) and are therefore unable to comment on whether sugar-starved females consumed more sugar than sugarsated females. However, when sugar-starved, a higher proportion of females consumed both blood and sugar, while fewer fed on blood alone.
For clarity, we have now also plotted the same data as stacked graphs at the bottom of Fig. 1F, which clearly shows the proportion of mosquitoes fed on each particular choice. We avoid the stacked graph as the sole representation of this data as it does not capture the variability in the data.
(4) Figure 3
In the neurotranscriptome analysis of the (central) brain involving the two types of comparisons, can the authors clarify what "excluded in males" refers to? Does this imply that only genes not expressed in males were considered in the analysis? If so, what about co-expressed genes that have a specific function in female feeding behaviour?
This is indeed correct. We reasoned that since blood feeding is exclusive to females, we should focus our analysis on genes that were specifically upregulated in them. As the reviewer points out, it is very likely that genes commonly upregulated in males and females may also promote blood feeding and we will miss out on any such candidates based on our selection criteria.
(5) Figure 4
The authors state that there is more efficient knockdown in the head of unfed females; however, this is not accurate since they only get knockdown in unfed animals, and no evidence of any knockdown in fed animals (panel D). This point should be revised in the results test as well.
Perhaps we do not understand the reviewer’s point or there has been a misunderstanding. In figure 4D, we show that while there is more robust gene knockdown in unfed females, blood-fed females also showed modest but measurable knockdowns ranging from 5-40% for RYamide and 2-21% for sNPF.
Relatedly, blood-feeding is decreased when both neuropeptide transcripts are targeted compared to uninjected (panel C) but not compared to dsGFP injected (panel E). Why is this the case if authors showed earlier in this figure (panel B) that dsGFP does not impact blood feeding?
We realise this concern stems from our representation of the data. Since we had earlier determined that dsGFP-injected females fed similarly to uninjected females (fig 4B), we used these controls interchangeably in subsequent experiments. To avoid confusion, we have now only used the label ‘control’ in figure 4 (and supplementary figure S9) and specified which control was used for each experiment in the legend.
In addition to this, we wanted to clarify that fig 4C and 4E are independent experiments. 4C is the behaviour corresponding to when the neuropeptides were knocked down in both heads and abdomens.
4E is the behaviour corresponding to when the neuropeptides were knocked down in only the abdomens. We have now added a schematic in the plots to make this clearer.
In addition, do the uninjected and dsGFP-injected relative mRNA expression data reflect combined RYa and sNPF levels? Why is there no variation in these data,…
In these qPCRs, we calculated relative mRNA expression using the delta-delta Ct method (see line 975). For each neuropeptide its respective control was used. For simplicity, we combined the RYa and sNPF control data into a single representation. The value of this control is invariant because this method sets the control baseline to a value of 1.
…and how do transcript levels of RYa and sNPF compare in the brain versus the abdomen (the presentation of data doesn't make this relationship clear).
The reviewer is correct in pointing out that we have not clarified this relationship in our current presentation. While we have not performed absolute mRNA quantifications, we extracted relative mRNA levels from qPCR data of 96h old unmanipulated control females. We observed that both sNPF and RYa transcripts are expressed at much lower levels in the abdomens, as compared to those in the heads, as shown in the graphs inserted below.
Author response image 1.
(6) As an overall comment, the figure captions are far too long and include redundant text presented in the methods and results sections.
We thank the reviewer for flagging this and have now edited the legends to remove redundancy.
(7) Criteria used for identifying neuropeptides promoting blood-feeding: statement that reads "all neuropeptides, since these are known to regulate feeding behaviours". This is not accurate since not all neuropeptides govern feeding behaviors, while certainly a subset do play a role.
We agree with the reviewer that not all neuropeptides regulate feeding behaviours. Our statement refers to the screening approach we used: in our shortlist of candidates, we chose to validate all neuropeptides.
(8) In the section beginning with "Two neuropeptides - sNPF and RYa - showed about 25% and 40% reduced mRNA levels...", the authors state that there was no change in blood-feeding and later state the opposite. The wording should be clarified as it is unclear.
Thank you for pointing this out. We were referring to an unchanged proportion of the blood fed females. We have now edited the text to the following:
“Two neuropeptides - sNPF and RYa - showed about 25% and 40% reduced mRNA levels in the heads but the proportion of females that took blood meals remained unchanged”. See lines 338-340.
(9) Just before the conclusions section, the statement that "neuropeptide receptors are often ligand promiscuous" is unjustified. Indeed, many studies have shown in heterologous systems that high concentrations of structurally related peptides, which are not physiologically relevant, might cross-react and activate a receptor belonging to a different peptide family; however, the natural ligand is often many times more potent (in most cases, orders of magnitude) than structurally related peptides. This is certainly the case for various RYamide and sNPF receptors characterized in various insect species.
We agree with the reviewer and apologise for the mistake. We have now removed the statement.
(10) Methods
In the dsRNA-mediated gene knockdown section, the authors could more clearly describe how much dsRNA was injected per target. At the moment, the reader must carry out calculations based on the concentrations provided and the injected volume range provided later in this section.
We have now edited the section to reflect the amount of dsRNA injected per target. Please see lines 921-931.
It is also unclear how tissue-specific knockdown was achieved by performing injection on different days/times. The authors need to explain/support, and justify how temporal differences in injection lead to changes in tissue-specific expression. Does the blood-brain barrier limit knockdown in the brain instead, while leaving expression in the peripheral organs susceptible?
To achieve tissue-specific knockdowns of sNPF and RYa, we optimised both the time of injection as well as the dsRNA concentration to be injected. Injecting dsRNA into 0-10h females produced abdomen specific knockdowns without affecting head expression, whereas injections into 96h old females resulted in knockdowns in both tissues. Head knockdowns in older females required higher dsRNA concentrations, with knockdown efficiency correlating with the amount injected. In contrast, abdominal knockdowns in younger females could be achieved even with lower dsRNA amounts, reflecting the lower baseline expression of sNPF in abdomens compared to heads and the age-dependent increase in head expression (as confirmed by qPCR). It is possible that the blood-brain barrier also limits the dsRNA entering the brain, thereby requiring higher amounts to be injected for head knockdowns.
We have now edited this section to state our methodology more clearly (see lines 932-948).
For example, in Figure 4, the data support that knockdown in the head/brain is only effective in unfed animals compared to uninjected animals, while there is no evidence of knockdown in the brain relative to dsGFP-injected animals. Comparatively, evidence appears to show stronger evidence of abdominal knockdown mostly for the RYa transcript (>90%) while still significantly for the sNPF transcript (>60%).
As we explained earlier, this concern likely stems from our representation of the data. Since we had earlier determined that dsGFP-injected females fed similarly to uninjected females (fig 4B), we used these controls interchangeably in subsequent experiments. To avoid confusion, we have now only used the label ‘control’ in figure 4 (and supplementary figure S9) and specified which control was used for each experiment in the legend.
In addition to this, we wanted to clarify that fig 4C and 4E are independent experiments. 4C is the behaviour corresponding to when the neuropeptides were knocked down in both heads and abdomens. 4E is the behaviour corresponding to when the neuropeptides were knocked down in only the abdomen. We have now added a schematic in the plots to make this clearer.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This manuscript investigates the regulation of host-seeking behavior in Anopheles stephensi females across different life stages and mating states. Through transcriptomic profiling, the authors identify differential gene expression between "blood-hungry" and "blood-sated" states. Two neuropeptides, sNPF and RYamide, are highlighted as potential mediators of host-seeking behavior. RNAi knockdown of these peptides alters host-seeking activity, and their expression is anatomically mapped in the mosquito brain (sNPF and RYamide) and midgut (sNPF only).
Strengths:
(1) The study addresses an important question in mosquito biology, with relevance to vector control and disease transmission.
(2) Transcriptomic profiling is used to uncover gene expression changes linked to behavioral states.
(3) The identification of sNPF and RYamide as candidate regulators provides a clear focus for downstream mechanistic work.
(3) RNAi experiments demonstrate that these neuropeptides are necessary for normal host-seeking behavior.
(4) Anatomical localization of neuropeptide expression adds depth to the functional findings.
Weaknesses:
(1) The title implies that the neuropeptides promote host-seeking, but sufficiency is not demonstrated (for example, with peptide injection or overexpression experiments).
Demonstrating sufficiency would require injecting sNPF peptide or its agonist. To date, no small-molecule agonists (or antagonists) that selectively mimic sNPF or RYa neuropeptides have been identified in insects. An NPY analogue, TM30335, has been reported to activate the Aedes aegypti NPY-like receptor 7 (NPYLR7; Duvall et al., 2019), which is also activated by sNPF peptides at higher doses (Liesch et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the compound is no longer available because its manufacturer, 7TM Pharma, has ceased operations. Synthesising the peptides is a possibility that we will explore in the future.
(2) The proposed model regarding central versus peripheral (gut) peptide action is inconsistently presented and lacks strong experimental support.
The best way to address this would be to conduct tissue-specific manipulations, the tools for which are not available in this species. Our approach to achieve head+abdomen and abdomen only knockdown was the closest we could get to achieving tissue specificity and allowed us to confirm that knockdown in the head was necessary for the phenotype. However, as the reviewer points out, this did not allow us to rule out any involvement of the abdomen. This point has been addressed in lines 364-371.
(3) Some conclusions appear premature based on the current data and would benefit from additional functional validation.
The most definitive way of demonstrating necessity of sNPF and RYa in blood feeding would be to generate mutant lines. While we are pursuing this line of experiments, they lie beyond the scope of a revision. In its absence, we relied on the knockdown of the genes using dsRNA. We would like to posit that despite only partial knockdown, mosquitoes do display defects in blood-feeding behaviour, without affecting sugar-feeding. We think this reflects the importance of sNPF in promoting blood feeding.
Recommendations for the authors:
Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):
Overall, I found this manuscript to be well-prepared, visually the figures are great and clearly were carefully thought out and curated, and the research is impacwul. It was a wonderful read from start to finish. I have the following recommendations:
Thank you very much, we are very pleased to hear that you enjoyed reading our manuscript!
(1) For future manuscripts, it would make things significantly easier on the reviewer side to submit a format that uses line numbers.
We sincerely apologise for the oversight. We have now incorporated line numbers in the revised manuscript.
(2) There are a few statements in the text that I think may need clarification or might be outside the bounds of what was actually studied here. For example, in the introduction "However, mating is dispensable in Anophelines even under conditions of nutritional satiety". I am uncertain what is meant by this statement - please clarify.
We apologise for the lack of clarity in the statement and have now deleted it since we felt it was not necessary.
(3) Typo/Grammatical minutiae:
a) A small idiosyncrasy of using hyphens in compound words should also be fixed throughout. Typically, you don't hyphenate if the words are being used as a noun, as in the case: e.g. "Age affects blood feeding.". However, you would hyphenate if the two words are used as a compound adjective "Age affects blood-feeding behavior". This may not be an all-inclusive list, but here are some examples where hyphens need to either be removed or added. Some examples:
"Nutritional state also influences other internal state outputs on blood-feeding": blood-feeding -> blood feeding
"... the modulation of blood-feeding": blood-feeding -> blood feeding
"For example, whether virgin females take blood-meals...": blood-meals -> blood meals
".... how internal and external cues shape meal-choice"-> meal choice
"blood-meal" is often used throughout the text, but is correctly "blood meal" in the figures.
There are many more examples throughout.
We apologise for these errors and appreciate the reviewer’s keen eye. We have now fixed them throughout the manuscript.
b) Figure 1 Caption has a typo: "co-housed males were accessed for sugar-feeding" should be "co-housed males were assessed for sugar feeding"
We apologise for the typo and thank the reviewer for spotting it. We have now corrected this.
c) It would be helpful in some other figure captions to more clearly label which statement is relevant to which part of the text. For example, in Figure 4's caption.
"C,D. Blood-feeding and sugar-feeding behaviour of females when both RYa and sNPF are knocked down in the head (C). Relative mRNA expressions of RYa and sNPF in the heads of dsRYa+dssNPF - injected blood-fed and unfed females, as compared to that in uninjected females, analysed via qPCR (D)."
I found re-referencing C and D at the end of their statements makes it look as thought C precedes the "Relative mRNA expression" and on a first read through, I thought the figure captions were backwards. I'd recommend reformating here and throughout consistently to only have the figure letter precede its relevant caption information, e.g.:
"C. Blood-feeding and sugar-feeding behaviour of females when both RYa and sNPF are knocked down in the head. D. Relative mRNA expressions of RYa and sNPF in the heads of dsRYa+dssNPF - injected bloodfed and unfed females, as compared to that in uninjected females, analysed via qPCR."
We have now edited the legends as suggested.
Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):
Separately from the clarifications and limitations listed above, the authors could strengthen their study and the conclusions drawn if they could rescue the behavioural phenotype observed following knockdown of sNPF and RYamide. This could be achieved by injection of either sNPF or RYa peptide independently or combined following knockdown to validate the role of these peptides in promoting blood-feeding in An. stephensi. Additionally, the apparent (but unclear) regionalized (or tissue-specific) knockdown of sNPF and RYamide transcripts could be visualized and verified by implementing HCR in situ hyb in knockdown animals (or immunohistochemistry using antibodies specific for these two neuropeptides).
In a follow up of this work, we are generating mutants and peptides for these candidates and are planning to conduct exactly the experiments the reviewer suggests.
Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):
The loss-of-function data suggest necessity but not sufficiency. Synthetic peptide injection in non-host seeking (blood-fed mated or juvenile) mosquitoes would provide direct evidence for peptide-induced behavioral activation. The lack of these experiments weakens the central claim of the paper that these neuropeptides directly promote blood feeding.
As noted above, we plan to synthesise the peptide to test rescue in a mutant background and sufficiency.
Some of the claims about knockdown efficiency and interpretation are conflicting; the authors dismiss Hairy and Prp as candidates due to 30-35% knockdown, yet base major conclusions on sNPF and RYamide knockdowns with comparable efficiencies (25-40%). This inconsistency should be addressed, or the justification for different thresholds should be clearly stated.
We have not defined any specific knockdown efficacy thresholds in the manuscript, as these can vary considerably between genes, and in some cases, even modest reductions can be sufficient to produce detectable phenotypes. For example, knockdown efficiencies of even as low as about 25% - 40% gave us observable phenotypes for sNPF and RYa RNAi (Figure S9B-G).
No such phenotypes were observed for Hairy (30%) or Prp (35%) knockdowns. Either these genes are not involved in blood feeding, or the knockdown was not sufficient for these specific genes to induce phenotypes. We cannot distinguish between these scenarios.
The observation that knockdown animals take smaller blood meals is interesting and could reflect a downstream effect of altered host-seeking or an independent physiological change. The relationship between meal size and host-seeking behavior should be clarified.
We agree with the reviewer that the reduced meal size observed in sNPF and RYa knockdown animals could result from their inability to seek a host or due to an independent effect on blood meal intake. Unfortunately, we did not measure host-seeking in these animals. We plan to distinguish between these possibilities using mutants in future work.
Several figures are difficult to interpret due to cluttered labeling and poorly distinguishable color schemes. Simplifying these and improving contrast (especially for co-housed vs. virgin conditions) would enhance readability.
We regret that the reviewer found the figures difficult to follow. We have now revised our annotations throughout the manuscript for enhanced readability. For example, “D1<sup>B</sup>” is now “D1<sup>PBM</sup>” (post-bloodmeal) and “D1<sup>O</sup>” is now “D1<sup>PO</sup>” (post-oviposition). Wherever mated females were used, we have now appended “(m)” to the annotations and consistently depicted these females with striped abdomens in all the schematics. We believe these changes will improve clarity and readability.
The manuscript does not clearly justify the use of whole-brain RNA sequencing to identify peptides involved in metabolic or peripheral processes. Given that anticipatory feeding signals are often peripheral, the logic for brain transcriptomics should be explained.
The reviewer is correct in pointing out that feeding signals could also emerge from peripheral tissues. Signals from these tissues – in response to both changing nutritional and reproductive states – are then integrated by the central brain to modulate feeding choices. For example, in Drosophila, increased protein intake is mediated by central brain circuitry including those in the SEZ and central complex (Munch et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2017; Goldschmidt et al., 2023). In the context of mating, male-derived sex peptide further increases protein feeding by acting on a dedicated central brain circuitry (Walker et al., 2015). We, therefore focused on the central brain for our studies.
The proposed model suggests brain-derived peptides initiate feeding, while gut peptides provide feedback. However, gut-specific knockdowns had no effect, undermining this hypothesis. Conversely, the authors also suggest abdominal involvement based on RNAi results. These contradictions need to be resolved into a consistent model.
We thank the reviewer for raising this point and recognise their concern. Our reasons for invoking an involvement of the gut were two-fold:
(1) We find increased sNPF transcript expression in the entero-endocrine cells of the midgut in blood-hungry females, which returns to baseline after a blood-meal (Fig. 4L, M).
(2) While the abdomen-only knockdowns did not affect blood feeding, every effective head knockdown that affected blood feeding also abolished abdominal transcript levels (Fig. S9C, F). (Achieving a head-only reduction proved impossible because (i) systemic dsRNA delivery inevitably reaches the abdomen and (ii) abdominal expression of both peptides is low, leaving little dynamic range for selective manipulation.) Consequently, we can only conclude the following: 1) that brain expression is required for the behaviour, 2) that we cannot exclude a contributory role for gut-derived sNPF. We have discussed this in lines 364-371.
The identification of candidate receptors is promising, but the manuscript would be significantly strengthened by testing whether receptor knockdowns phenocopy peptide knockdowns. Without this, it is difficult to conclude that the identified receptors mediate the behavioral effects.
We agree that functional validation of the receptors would strengthen the evidence for sNPF and RYa_mediated control of blood feeding in _An. stephensi. We selected these receptors based on sequence homology. A possibility remains that sNPF neuropeptides activate more than one receptor, each modulating a distinct circuit, as shown in the case of Drosophila Tachykinin (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10184743/). This will mean a systematic characterisation and knockdown of each of them to confirm their role. We are planning these experiments in the future.
The authors compared the percentage changes in sugar-fed and blood-fed animals under sugar-sated or sugar-starved conditions. Figure 1F should reflect what was discussed in the results.
Perhaps this concern stems from our representation of the data in figure 1F? We have now edited the xaxis and revised its label from “choice of food” to “choice made” to better reflect what food the mosquitoes chose to take.
For clarity, we have now also plotted the same data as stacked graphs at the bottom of Fig. 1F, which clearly shows the proportion of mosquitoes fed on each particular choice. We avoid the stacked graph as the sole representation of this data because it does not capture the variability in the data.
Minor issues:
(1) The authors used mosquitoes with belly stripes to indicate mated females. To be consistent, the post-oviposition females should also have belly stripes.
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now edited all the figures as suggested.
(2) In the first paragraph on the right column of the second page, the authors state, "Since females took blood-meals regardless of their prior sugar-feeding status and only sugar-feeding was selectively suppressed by prior sugar access." Just because the well-fed animals ate less than the starved animals does not mean their feeding behavior was suppressed.
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding in the experimental setup of figure 1F, probably stemming from our data representation. The experiment is a choice assay in which sugar-starved or sugar-sated females, co-housed with males, were provided simultaneous access to both blood and sugar, and were assessed for the choice made (indicated on the x-axis): both blood and sugar, blood only, sugar only, or neither. We scored females only for the presence or absence of each meal type (blood or sugar) and did not quantify the amount consumed.
(3) The figure legend for Figure 1A and the naming convention for different experimental groups are difficult to follow. A simplified or consistently abbreviated scheme would help readers navigate the figures and text.
We regret that the reviewer found the figure difficult to follow. We have now revised our annotations throughout the manuscript for enhanced readability. For example, “D1<sup>B</sup>” is now “D1<sup>PBM</sup>” (post-bloodmeal) and “D1<sup>O</sup>” is now “D1<sup>PO</sup>” (post-oviposition).
(4) In the last paragraph of the Y-maze olfactory assay for host-seeking behaviour in An. stephensi in Methods, the authors state, "When testing blood-fed females, aged-matched sugar-fed females (bloodhungry) were included as positive controls where ever possible, with satisfactory results." The authors should explicitly describe what the criteria are for "satisfactory results".
We apologise for the lack of clarity. We have now edited the statement to read:
“When testing blood-fed females, age-matched sugar-fed females (blood-hungry) were included wherever possible as positive controls. These females consistently showed attraction to host cues, as expected.” See lines 786-790.
(5) In the first paragraph of the dsRNA-mediated gene knockdown section in Methods, dsRNA against GFP is used as a negative control for the injection itself, but not for the potential off-target effect.
We agree with the reviewer that dsGFP injections act as controls only for injection-related behavioural changes, and not for off-target effects of RNAi. We have now corrected the statement. See lines 919-920.
To control for off-target effects, we could have designed multiple dsRNAs targeting different parts of a given gene. We regret not including these controls for potential off-target effects of dsRNAs injected.
(6) References numbers 48, 89, and 90 are not complete citations.
We thank the reviewer for spotting these. We have now corrected these citations.