Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 30, 2020
Decision Letter - Mehdi Rahimi, Editor

PONE-D-20-32358

Detection of genetic divergence among some wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using molecular and biochemical indicators under salinity stress.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abd El Moneim,

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 Feb 13 2021 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,

Mehdi Rahimi, 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[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: Wheat is an important crop and staple in many countries. Thus, any restrictions to its yield or production through salinity stress is of high concern. This paper describes the molecular and biochemical diversity in response to salt stress. The manuscript has been well written, with a few issues I would like to bring the authors attention to.

Firstly, the formatting of the paper should be checked to ensure that they meet the requirements of the journal, the major issue being the tables and the headings. (Kindly refer to the author guidelines for that).

Secondly, mostly seen at the materials and methods section, references were made to numbers, which I believe is not in right order. For example, "seeds were sterilized and then germinated for three weeks using the method described by [28]". Please rectify.

Thirdly, parameters describing the informativeness of the markers including average number of alleles per locus, average number of effective alleles, the mean heterozygosity per locus could be included.

Fourthly, the discussion section is all put together, with no paragraphing makes reading difficult. Moreover, the explanation could be concise and better explaining.

Finally, authors should scan through the entire manuscript for minor typographical and grammatical errors, as such.

Reviewer #2: The paper is written in very well manner. Still need improvement in english. Overall, the paper is good and can be proceed further for evaluation. Stats is well explained and need no further addition

**********

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: Yes: Rabail Afzal

[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 1

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

First, we are very appreciative of the great efforts of the reviewer in reviewing our manuscript, and we are very thankful for all the valuable comments and suggestions, which have improved our manuscript. In this regard, below we provide detailed answers to each of the requests and concerns raised by the reviewers. Moreover, we have attached a revised version of our manuscript that includes all the suggested corrections.

Point 1: Firstly, the formatting of the paper should be checked to ensure that they meet the requirements of the journal, the major issue being the tables and the headings.

Response 1: We have checked the formatting of the paper, and the revised manuscript as well as the tables and the figures follows the journal instructions.

Point 2: Secondly, mostly seen at the materials and methods section, references were made to numbers, which I believe is not in right order. For example, "seeds were sterilized and then germinated for three weeks using the method described by [28]". Please rectify.

Response 2: This has been corrected in the new revised manuscript file. Moreover, we have examined the entire manuscript to ensure that all the inserted references are numbered in the appropriate order.

Point 3: Thirdly, parameters describing the informativeness of the markers including average number of alleles per locus, average number of effective alleles, the mean heterozygosity per locus could be included.

Response 3:

- All the required parameters have been calculated, and the results are included in Table 1.

- Please note that we have reconstructed Table 1, which was two separate tables in the old version. In its new format, this table now includes all the estimated and calculated parameters from the old version of the manuscript (MB: monomorphic band, UB: unique band, PB: polymorphic band, TAB: total amplified bands, FS: fragment size, PIC: polymorphic information content, EMR: effective multiplex ratio, MI: marker index, P%: percent of polymorphism, Rp: resolving power) as well as all the new calculated parameters (Na: average number of alleles per loci, Ne: average number of effective alleles per loci, He: expected heterozygosity, uHe: unbiased expected heterozygosity).

- In addition, please note that it was difficult to calculate the mean heterozygosity per locus for the studied ISSR and SCoT primers. Because the amplification bands are often dominant markers, it is impossible to effectively identify homozygotes and heterozygotes (Isabel et al., 1999; McGregor et al., 2000 and Burgess 2001). Therefore, we calculated the expected heterozygosity and unbiased expected heterozygosity.

- Additionally, in the Material and Methods section, we have included the methods that were used to calculate the new parameters. The Results and Discussion have been updated accordingly.

Point 4: Fourthly, the discussion section is all put together, with no paragraphing makes reading difficult. Moreover, the explanation could be concise and better explaining.

Response 4: This has been corrected in the revised manuscript. Please note that the format of the discussion has been reconstructed in separate paragraphs as requested. Simultaneously, we have examined the entire Discussion and deleted some parts, in addition to revising others for clarity and concision.

Point 5: Finally, authors should scan through the entire manuscript for minor typographical and grammatical errors, as such.

Response 5: Before we submitted our paper for review by your respected journal, we had our manuscript edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by one or more of the highly qualified native English speaking editors at AJE (please see the attached certificate). In addition, we have reedited the corrected manuscript using the same service (please see the attached certificate).

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The paper is written in very well manner. Still need improvement in English. Overall, the paper is good and can be proceed further for evaluation.

Response 1: Before we submitted our paper for review by your respected journal, we had our manuscript edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by one or more of the highly qualified native English speaking editors at AJE (please see the attached certificate). In addition, we have reedited the corrected manuscript using the same service (please see the attached certificate).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mehdi Rahimi, Editor

PONE-D-20-32358R1

Detection of genetic divergence among some wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using molecular and biochemical indicators under salinity stress.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abd El Moneim,

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 Apr 16 2021 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,

Mehdi Rahimi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Manuscript is well written. However, authors should go through the formatting very well to ensure that they are consistent. Especially with the headings and sub-headings. In all, paper has been properly presented.

Reviewer #2: Please check and review this paper again. Some grammatical mistakes are still present. Some minor mistakes of grammer

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rabail Afzal

[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

First, we are very appreciative of the great efforts of the reviewer in reviewing our manuscript, and we are very thankful for all the valuable comments and suggestions, which have improved our manuscript. In this regard, below we provide detailed answers to each of the requests and concerns raised by the reviewers. Moreover, we have attached a revised version of our manuscript that includes all the suggested corrections.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Manuscript is well written. However, authors should go through the formatting very well to ensure that they are consistent. Especially with the headings and sub-headings. In all, paper has been properly presented.

Response 1: thank you so much for your positive comment, we have checked the formatting of the paper, as well as the headings and sub-headings to be sure that all are in the suitable font.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Please check and review this paper again. Some grammatical mistakes are still present. Some minor mistakes of grammar.

Response 1: we have checked the entire manuscript to detect any grammatical mistakes. Please see the attached revised version that include all the corrections that we did.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mehdi Rahimi, Editor

Detection of genetic divergence among some wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using molecular and biochemical indicators under salinity stress.

PONE-D-20-32358R2

Dear Dr. Abd El Moneim,

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,

Mehdi Rahimi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: All the comments and recommendations have been addressed in this revision. No more changes needded now

**********

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: Rabail Afzal

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mehdi Rahimi, Editor

PONE-D-20-32358R2

Detection of genetic divergence among some wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes using molecular and biochemical indicators under salinity stress

Dear Dr. Abd El-Moneim:

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. Mehdi Rahimi

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 .