Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 13, 2020
Decision Letter - Hon-Ming Lam, Editor

PONE-D-20-07320

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defense against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kang,

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.

Please also arrange professional English editing for this manuscript to improve its language clarity.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 03 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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: 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 article : Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defense against soybean cyst

nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS is well written. The content is easy to follow and the methodologies are clearly stated. However, feature extractions of metabolites (relatively low coverage nowadays but acceptable) could be improved.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports the results from a pot experiment and revealed the effects of Bacillus inoculation on root metabolic changes in soybean plants infected with cyst nematodes (SCN). The findings showed that the bacterial inoculation functioned in three different aspects: reduced food source, produced nematocidal substances and improved disease-resistance ability. The main concern is that only one soybean cultivar, one bacterial strain, and one isolate of cyst nematode were used in this study. Another concern is the language writing which needs further improvements throughout the manuscript (lots of typos and grammatical errors). Some other specific comments:

L. 47-50: the objective is quite general. It would be good to add hypotheses of this study.

L. 59: not clear of how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds

L. 67: not clear of the seedling age or growth stage at the time of inoculation with SCN

L. 70: plants were assessed at 5 and 10 days after inoculation: not sure if such short period was enough for observing interactions between the bacteria and SCN

L. 81: samples of roots?

L. 74: ‘Liaodou15’ here, but ‘Liao15’ in L. 58. Use one and be consistent throughout the manuscript

L. 77-78: last sentence on data analysis can be removed to the “Data analysis” section

L. 107-114: put this section last, i.e. before the ‘Results’ section to include all acquired data in this study in addition to the spectrometry data, such as ANOVA for nematode numbers etc.

L. 129: significant level? The statistical analysis was not mentioned in the M&M section.

L. 130-131: delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS”(PONE-D-20-07320). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the editors and reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the editor’s comments:

1. We have found the professional English editing for this manuscript to improve its language clarity. And we have different treatment manuscript labeled followed the 'Response to Reviewers', 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' and 'Manuscript'.

2. We have deposited our laboratory protocols in protocols.io.

DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bhbpj2mn

3. We have added the first author’s ORCID.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2:

1. Response to comment: L. 47-50: the objective is quite general. It would be good to add hypotheses of this study.

Reply: We added the hypotheses of this study that “We hypothesized that bacteria could improve soybean resistance to nematode infection by inducing the soybean plant roots to produce substances with nematode killing activity or inhibiting the nematode’s growth and development.” in L.53-56.

2. Response to comment: L. 59: not clear of how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds.

Reply: We explain the methods how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds in L.66-67 “Subsequently, the seeds were washed with 70% ethanol and 1% of the seeds were coated with Sneb545.”

3. Response to comment: L. 67: not clear of the seedling age or growth stage at the time of inoculation with SCN.

Reply: L.77-78 When two true leaves were grown from soybean, the root of soybean was inoculated with soybean cyst nematode.

4. Response to comment: L. 70: plants were assessed at 5 and 10 days after inoculation: not sure if such short period was enough for observing interactions between the bacteria and SCN

Reply: L79: After the previous observation on the development of nematode in soybean root under the microscope, we found that there were four larvae at 10 days after nematode infected soybean, so although the difference was only 5 days, the development state of nematode in these two time points was obviously different.

5. Response to comment: L. 81: samples of roots?

Reply: Yes. The sample is root tissue of the soybean.

6. Response to comment: L. 74: ‘Liaodou15’ here, but ‘Liao15’ in L. 58. Use one and be consistent throughout the manuscript

Reply: We have changed the L.84‘Liaodou15’ into‘Liao15’.

7. Response to comment: L. 77-78: last sentence on data analysis can be removed to the “Data analysis” section

Reply: We removed the L.77-78 last sentence on data analysis to the “Statistical analysis” section in L.120-121 “The nematode infection and mortality data were examined using Student’s t-test in SPSS 17.0 (IBM, USA) and a P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.”

8. Response to comment: L. 107-114: put this section last, i.e. before the ‘Results’ section to include all acquired data in this study in addition to the spectrometry data, such as ANOVA for nematode numbers etc.

Reply: We put this section ‘Statistical analysis’ before the‘Results’ section in L.120-128.

9. Response to comment: L. 129: significant level? The statistical analysis was not mentioned in the M&M section.

Reply: We added the statistical analysis in the ‘Statistical analysis’ section in L.121-123.

10. Response to comment: L. 130-131: delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section.

Reply: We delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section in L.162-163.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Hon-Ming Lam, Editor

PONE-D-20-07320R1

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This manuscript needs a thorough English polishing. The authors may consider to get professional English editing service.

[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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #2: Yes

**********

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 #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 #2: The authors have attended all comments and carefully revised the manuscirpt. Higher resolution / better quality of figures are required for the publications. The writing language has been largely imporved in the R1. However, there are still many language problems requiring further improvements. Let's take the first paragraph of the Introduction section as examples:

L. 33: change "Soybean has a high protein and oil content" to "Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content".

L. 34 "which place high importance on its production yield" is not clear.

L. 36 "can hinder its growth and production": not clear of "its" - just use "soybean", and can be changed to "can hinder the growth and production of soybean".

L. 39-40: "Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonises the rhizosphere of" should use "colonise".

L. 42-44: replace "Our past studies have discovered the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex that can enhance soybean resistance to SCN" with "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN"

.....

**********

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 #2: Yes: Yinglong Chen

[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.

Revision 2

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS”(PONE-D-20-07320). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the editors and reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2:

1. Response to comment: Higher resolution/better quality of figures are required for the publications.

Reply: We enhanced the resolution to 300*300 of the figures .

2. Response to comment: change "Soybean has a high protein and oil content" to "Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content".

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content” in L.33

3. Response to comment: L. 34 "which place high importance on its production yield" is not clear.

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “This places a high importance on efficient production of soybean with a high yield” in L. 34.

4. Response to comment: L. 36 "can hinder its growth and production": not clear of "its" - just use "soybean", and can be changed to "can hinder the growth and production of soybean".

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “can hinder the growth and production of soybean” in L.37.

5. Response to comment: L. 39-40: "Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonises the rhizosphere of" should use "colonise".

Reply: We have changed the word to “colonise” in L.41.

6. Response to comment: L. 42-44: replace "Our past studies have discovered the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex that can enhance soybean resistance to SCN" with "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN"

Reply: We have changed the sentence to "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN" in L.43-45.

7. We also modified the other language problems in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changges’.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Hon-Ming Lam, Editor

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PONE-D-20-07320R2

Dear Dr. Kang,

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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Hon-Ming Lam, Editor

PONE-D-20-07320R2

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

Dear Dr. Kang:

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. Hon-Ming Lam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .