PONE-D-19-29309

Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Vinale,

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 paper has been revised by two experts who suggested to insert some minor revision in order to render the ms acceptable for publication in PlosOne.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sabrina Sarrocco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Cosvitec scarl.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Article entitled “Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes” by G. d´Errico and coworkers, described the isolation of a total of 15 strain from MtBE contaminated soils, from where they finally selected three strains able to grow in MtBE as sole carbon source. Authors study their ability to degrade MtBE, but also they analyze their in vitro and in vivo ability to antagonize three different fungal pathogens, as well as their effect in tomato seeds germination and tomato root growth in plants infected or not with the pathogen Pythium ultimum. Authors finally isolated the metabolite maculosin from strain R8b and determine their effect on inhibition of R. solani.

Article it is interesting since identified bacterial strains putatively interesting in bioremediation of MtBE contaminated soils, but also analyzed their ability to induce growth and defense response in plants, which both are together very interesting properties. Thus, this work includes new insights in these two, apparently unrelated fields, bioremediation and biocontrol.

The experiments are clearly presented and article well written.

I only have included some minor suggestions (below) that could contribute to the improvement of this manuscript.

Abstract

Lines 22-23. Please specify if B. aryabhattai refers to a Bacillus or a Bosea species.

Results

Section starting on Line 277.- It would be interesting to know why authors do not include strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this analysis. Please explain.

Legend to Fig. 2 must be wrong since in that Figure there are included data from strains R1B, R8b and R8i, while in the legend indicates that only data from B. aryabhattai R1b are included. Please correct the legend.

Section starting on line 337. Authors would have to explain more in detail why they only used strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this study.

Reviewer #2: The MS is overall well written, and authors presented using a multidisciplinary approach novelty results, reporting for the first time the occurrence of bioremediation and biocontrol activities of some species of Bacteria.

I suggest, if the authors had some good pictures of the experiment in vivo, to insert them in the MS or in the Supplementary Materials.

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria sprayed on the tomato leaves against some insect parasites, such as aphids, mites, and Tuta absoluta? Could be used also as insecticides?

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria against plant parasitic nematodes? Could be used also as nematocides?

If know, what is the impact of these selected bacteria on soil microorganisms such as collembola, mites and other micro arthropods?

I have some suggestions to improve the article:

Line 22 and lines 278, 295, 296: at the beginning of sentence report the entire name of the genus. Bacillus and not the abbreviation. Starkeya and not the abbreviation. Check it in all the MS.

Lines 58-60: I suggest to insert e.g. after the first bracket and to delete etc at the end.

Line 84: I suggest to change with culturing the isolates.

Line 93: Specify where the contaminated soil was collected.

Lines 149-157: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Lines 159-171: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Lines 186-196: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Line 434-436: …screening steps through a multidisciplinary approach to obtain…

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes

PONE-D-19-29309R1

Dear Dr. Vinale,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Sabrina Sarrocco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: