In this revised manuscript, Navarro-Escalante et al. integrated suggestions from the reviewers, especially concerning the Wolbachia analysis. The authors made a great effort to improve the clarity of the manuscript. 
 
The new phylogenetic analysis performed in this revised version of the manuscript is important to classify the two wMvel haplotypes. However, explanations and modifications are required. I do not understand how the dataset, 48 sequences (information not indicated) composed of 38 sequences and the 10 M. velezangeli sequences, has been established. The sentence on line 212: “wsp sequences from representative insect-derived Wolbachia endosymbiont isolates at the Genebank database.” lacks precision. Why did the authors choose these sequences? Moreover, it includes a non-insect sequence from the spider Pardosa mionebulosa. If authors would like to keep this sequence in the dataset they should replace the word "insect" used several times by the word "arthropod". I strongly suggest to modify the dataset since it contains only two sequences isolated in Hemiptera insects (non Heteroptera) from the B Supergroup. As I suggested in my previous review, authors should use data from Kaczmarczyk-Ziemba & Krepski, 2020 Entomological Science and Kikuchi & Fukatsu, 2003 Applied and Environmental Microbiology. I suggest to incorporate in the dataset A and B supergroups wsp sequences isolated in Heteroptera. Kikuchi & Fukatsu, 2003 already identified Wolbachia isolated from Miridae belonging to the B supergroup and it should be indicated. The sequences isolated from Heteroptera could be indicated in the tree in bold typeface.
 
There are also a few typos.
Line 390: “infection” should be changed to “infections”
Line 610: “Bbg” should be changed to “Bug”
Line 712: “Wolbachia” and “wsp” should be in italics

The manuscript has been significantly improved. The authors have taken all comments into consideration and addressed them appropriately. The quality of the study has been further enhanced by the inclusion of additional data and analyses related to the Wolbachia symbionts. These updates have not led to any further questions.

In this manuscript, Navarro-Escalante et al. identified the bacterial microbiota of an insect pest, the polyphagous plant bug Monalonion velezangeli. The authors performed DNA extraction from whole insects followed by 16S rRNA amplification and sequencing and then analyzed the bacterial clades present in two life stages: nymphs and adults. They highlighted the high prevalence of Wolbachia symbionts in both life stages and the presence of a core bacterial microbiota shared by the two life stages composed of 13 bacteria genera.
This study is interesting because it provides new information on insect microbiota, especially in the Miridae insect family for which the knowledge on the diversity of bacterial symbionts is very limited.
However, I suggest to incorporate additional experiments in this study to precise the nature of the symbionts, especially for the prevalent Wolbachia.

Identification of Wolbachia as the most prevalent bacteria in M. velezangeli symbionts is one of the key finding of this study. However, the authors did not present a comprehensive analysis of this bacteria type, despite the recent studies revealing the presence of Wolbachia in other Heteroptera. A full identification of the Wolbachia strain (or strains) identified in M. velezangeli should be performed, with the use of specific gene sequencing (wsp or ftsZ) followed by a phylogenetical analysis. Data from this study need to be compared with those of recent studies on other Heteroptera with Wolbachia endosymbionts (Gerroidea superfamily in Conjard et al, 2022 PLoS One ; Aphelocheiridae family in Kaczmarczyk-Ziemba & Krepski, 2020 Entomological Science ; Miridae family in Kikuchi & Fukatsu, 2003 Applied and Environmental Microbiology).
A similar phylogenetical confirmation for the 12 other members of the core microbiota (when data on other insect species are available) would strengthen the data presented in this manuscript.
Since the study was performed using whole insect DNA, a confirmation by mean of adult or nymph gut dissection followed by DNA extraction, sequencing and analysis would clearly reinforce author’s conclusions on the core microbiota.

A recent study has determined that partial sequencing of the 16S sequence could lead to imprecise determination of bacteria clades (Johnson et al, 2019 Nature Communication), however authors have focused on the V3-V4 region of 16S rNRA. A possible bias through this partial sequencing should be discussed.
 
Precisions on the Material and Methods section:
Lines 110-112: Were the nymphs and adults collected on the same plant parts? It should be indicated.
Line 118 : Address for Invitrogen is missing

Line 125: Reference for the QIIME2 software is missing
 
Precision on the Result section:
Figure 2C and Figure 3B: The heatmap results presented here for Romboutsia are not clear. In figure 2C, Romboutsia is abundant for the first adult sample and in figure 3C this is the opposite (abundant for the two other adult samples).

Suggestion on the Result section: The two types of green colors used in Figure 3 for Chlorobi and Tenericutes are very similar and could lead to misinterpretation of a similar profile between two samples: Adult1 and Nymph2 when in fact the two samples are very different. I suggest to use more distinct shades of green or different colors. 

Precision on the Supplementary data:
The tables S1 to S6 present in the column 8 the P-values obtained with the Mann-Whitney test for Adult vs Nymphs. These P-values have variable numbers after the dot and some P-values are equal to 1 (is it an approximate value?). For all P-values, it would be important to normalize the number of decimals after the dot for all the bacterial clades.

Genus/species names should all be in italics in the columns 3/4/5 of Table 3, in the figure legend of Figure 1 and in the first column of Table S6.