Exogenous salicylic acid-induced drought stress tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under hydroponic culture

Ali Ahmad; Zubair Aslam; Maliha Naz; Sadam Hussain; Talha Javed; Sadia Aslam; Ali Raza; Hayssam M. Ali; Manzer H. Siddiqui; Mohamed Z. M. Salem; Christophe Hano; Rubab Shabbir; Sunny Ahmar; Tasbiha Saeed; Muhammad Asif Jamal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260556

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 17, 2021
2 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Jen-Tsung Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-33279Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced Drought Stress Tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Grown under Hydroponic CulturePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Javed, 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 Dec 17 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jen-Tsung Chen, 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP 2021/123) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for financially supporting the current esearch." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This research was funded by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/123) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: In this article, authors have discussed the role of salicylic acid application in enhancing drought tolerance in wheat. Authors collected the data on different morphological, physiological and biochemical attributes of wheat. Although, the theme of the article is interesting and relevant to the journal’s scope. However, I feel some flaws in different sections of the manuscript particularly regarding introduction and methodology, as indicated below in the specific comments. A through revision/justification is required prior to publication. Abstract Line 6-9: Check it grammatically Line 11: Experiment was laid out under…. Line 12-14: merge into a sentence Introduction There are some unit issues, check it carefully Lines 49-50: Re-write the sentence What makes special this study? Which is its novelty character or its special aspects? Why have the authors chosen this topic? What differentiate this paper from others in the same topic? Please make this aim of the study more relevant and representative for your research, according to its content. Materials and methods Line 131: (DD0= 0) � rephrase it Line 142: used unit according to SI (Check this issue throughout the experiment) Results and Discussion Line 259: revise sentence as: ‘root and shoot length and their fresh and dry weights’ Line 330: revise as: performance of wheat crop There are some grammatically mistakes in discussion revise it carefully. Line 331: where are physiological attributes? Line 335: Delete ‘drought stress’ Line 346: water pot content’ check it. Conclusion Give 1-2 key findings of the current study summarizing the whole manuscript. Reference Should be according to journal style Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced Drought stress Tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivium L.) Grown under Hydroponic Culture” investigated the effectiveness of Salicylic acid application to enhance drought tolerance in wheat. The manuscript is good in structure; however, some minor issues should be addressed before publication. In abstract section: Add problem statement. Summarize the key results. Be consistent regarding units. Introduction section contains various grammatical issues. Remain focused on the topic. Be clear regarding objectives. Provides some recent studies Material and Method section: L121: Each plant was supported with the help of a thermophore sheet. Clarify the statement L131: no drought (DD0= 0): what is unit? Avoid starting a sentence with number/abbreviation. In results, better to add the numeric description of results (% variations) instead of just adding the data values for easy understanding of the readers. Data values are well clear in tables. Discussion should be merely based on the observed findings. Not just a review of literature. Answer the question posed in introduction and correlate your finding with the existing knowledge. Conclusion: Just report the key findings… it should not be a detailed summary of the work done. Check whether the format of all references is according to the journal format. Some of the references are too old. Add few recent studies. All the tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Define all the abbreviations in the table foot note/figure captions. Reviewer #3: Comments for PLoS One Manuscript (PONE-D-21-33279) The manuscript entitled “Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced drought stress tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under hydroponic culture” is written well and appropriate methodology was used to justify the results with a balanced conclusions. In the result section the data were presentation nicely. I hope this manuscript sounds good for researchers and scientists interested in this field. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for minor revision. The author must address the following points properly. A part from this few grammatical and punctuations mistakes are also there which needs to improve in the revised version. In Introduction Section Line 7: Put comma after ‘respectively’ Line 11: Check it again for grammar mistakes Line 15: Replace the word observed with recorded Line 19: Start new sentence here Line 31: Instead of writing the Hectares use standard symbol as ha Line 53-54: Rephrase the sentence for clarity Line 63-64, 67-68: Re-write the sentences In Material and Methods Section Line 170: 10 ml di-acid, what is di-acid? Elaborate it Line 176: was hoisted to 100 ml: it is ml or mL, use the standard symbol throughout manuscript Line 184: One citation is enough. Use the most relevant one Line 190: p should be small. Line 224, 239: unit is not according to SI Line 238: 50 mM, in the ice bath: 50 mM of which? Line 245: How absorbance was recorded? In the Results Section There are several grammatically issues. Check the complete section again and improve the languages which sound good for readers. Line 263: ‘minimum root length (38.67 cm) was recorded by cultivar Barani-17 under drought-free conditions’ check it carefully In the Discussion Section Line 331: where are physiological attributes? Line 335: Delete ‘drought stress’ Line 346: water pot content’ check it Line 383: Check the reference style. In the Conclusion Section Line 403: Use abbreviation here Reference should be accordance to journal format. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes:** Mohd. Sayeed Akhtar [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments for PloS One Manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260556.r001
Revision 1
10 Nov 2021 Author Response Response to comments (Reviewer 1) In this article, authors have discussed the role of salicylic acid application in enhancing drought tolerance in wheat. Authors collected the data on different morphological, physiological and biochemical attributes of wheat. Although, the theme of the article is interesting and relevant to the journal’s scope. However, I feel some flaws in different sections of the manuscript particularly regarding introduction and methodology, as indicated below in the specific comments. Response: Thanks for your comments. All changes suggested by the worthy reviewer are incorporated in revised file. Abstract: Line 6-9: Check it grammatically Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised the sentence for more clarity. Line 11: Experiment was laid out under…. Response: Thanks for your comments. We are sorry for this typo error. For clarity, we have revised the sentence. Line 12-14: merge into a sentence Response: Done as suggested Introduction There are some unit issues, check it carefully Response: Thanks for your comments. We have checked/corrected the units according to SI. Lines 49-50: Re-write the sentence Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised the sentence for clarity. What makes special this study? Which is its novelty character or its special aspects? Why have the authors chosen this topic? What differentiate this paper from others in the same topic? Please make this aim of the study more relevant and representative for your research, according to its content. Response: Thanks for your comments. Novelty statement with hypothesis has been provided in revised file. Materials and methods: Line 131: (DD0= 0) � rephrase it Response: Replaced Line 142: used unit according to SI (Check this issue throughout the experiment) Response: Thanks for your comments. All units are now according to SI. Results and Discussion Line 259: revise sentence as: ‘root and shoot length and their fresh and dry weights’ Response: Done as suggested Line 330: revise as: performance of wheat crop Response: Revised as suggested. There are some grammatically mistakes in discussion revise it carefully. Line 331: where are physiological attributes? Response: Thanks for your comments. Physiological attributes also discussed in revised file. Line 335: Delete ‘drought stress’ Response: Deleted Line 346: water pot content’ check it. Response: Corrected now Conclusion Give 1-2 key findings of the current study summarizing the whole manuscript. Response: Thanks for your comments. Conclusion section is now revised for more clarity. Reference Should be according to journal style Response: Thanks for your comments. All references are now revised according to journal style Response to comments (Reviewer 2) The manuscript entitled “Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced Drought stress Tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivium L.) Grown under Hydroponic Culture” investigated the effectiveness of Salicylic acid application to enhance drought tolerance in wheat. The manuscript is good in structure; however, some minor issues should be addressed before publication. In abstract section: Add problem statement. Summarize the key results. Be consistent regarding units. Response: Thanks for your comments. The manuscript is revised now for clarity. Problem statement is now provided in the revised file. All units are now according to SI. Introduction section contains various grammatical issues. Remain focused on the topic. Be clear regarding objectives. Provides some recent studies Response: Thanks for your comments. Introduction section is revised, and all grammatical errors are omitted. Material and Method section: L121: Each plant was supported with the help of a thermophore sheet. Clarify the statement Response: Corrected now L131: no drought (DD0= 0): what is unit? Response: Unit is ‘MPa’ which is added in revised file Avoid starting a sentence with number/abbreviation. Response: Thanks for your comments. We have checked this issue throughout the manuscript In results, better to add the numeric description of results (% variations) instead of just adding the data values for easy understanding of the readers. Data values are well clear in tables. Response: Thanks for your comments. We have provided % variations where necessary. Discussion should be merely based on the observed findings. Not just a review of literature. Answer the question posed in introduction and correlate your finding with the existing knowledge. Response: Thanks for your comments. Discussion section is revised now. Conclusion: Just report the key findings… it should not be a detailed summary of the work done. Check whether the format of all references is according to the journal format. Some of the references are too old. Add few recent studies. Response: Conclusion section is revised now for more clarity. All the tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Define all the abbreviations in the table foot note/figure captions. Response: Thanks for your comments. We have checked/updated the figures and tables by defining all abbreviations Response to comments (Reviewer 3) The manuscript entitled “Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced drought stress tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under hydroponic culture” is written well and appropriate methodology was used to justify the results with a balanced conclusions. In the result section the data were presentation nicely. I hope this manuscript sounds good for researchers and scientists interested in this field. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for minor revision. The author must address the following points properly. A part from this few grammatical and punctuations mistakes are also there which needs to improve in the revised version. Response: Many thanks for your favorable comments In Introduction Section: Line 7: Put comma after ‘respectively’ Response: Done as suggested Line 11: Check it again for grammar mistakes Response: Many thanks for your comments. We have revised the sentence for clarity. Line 15: Replace the word observed with recorded Response: Done as suggested Line 19: Start new sentence here Response: Done as suggested Line 31: Instead of writing the Hectares use standard symbol as ha Response: Done as suggested. All units are revised/checked now Line 53-54: Rephrase the sentence for clarity Response: Replaced as suggested Line 63-64, 67-68: Re-write the sentences Response: Thanks. We have revised the sentence for clarity In Material and Methods Section Line 170: 10 ml di-acid, what is di-acid? Elaborate it Response: Many thanks for your comments. Di-acid means two acids, HNO3 and HCLO4, that used during analysis of this parameter. Line 176: was hoisted to 100 ml: it is ml or mL, use the standard symbol throughout manuscript Response: Many thanks for your comments. All units are now revised as per SI Line 184: One citation is enough. Use the most relevant one Response: Done as suggested Line 190: p should be small. Response: Done as suggested Line 224, 239: unit is not according to SI Response: Corrected now Line 238: 50 mM, in the ice bath: 50 mM of which? Response: 50 mM of phosphate buffer Line 245: How absorbance was recorded? Response: Through spectrophotometer In the Results Section There are several grammatically issues. Check the complete section again and improve the languages which sound good for readers. Response: Thanks for your comments. Result section is now revised to clarity the problems. All grammatical errors are omitted in revised file Line 263: ‘minimum root length (38.67 cm) was recorded by cultivar Barani-17 under drought-free conditions’ check it carefully Response: Corrected now In the Discussion Section Line 331: where are physiological attributes? Response: Physiological attributes are now discussed in revised file. Line 335: Delete ‘drought stress’ Response: Deleted as suggested Line 346: water pot content’ check it Response: Corrected now Line 383: Check the reference style. Response: Corrected now In the Conclusion Section Line 403: Use abbreviation here Response: Corrected now and checked this issue throughout the manuscript Reference should be accordance to journal format. Response: All references are now according to journal style Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260556.r002
12 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Jen-Tsung Chen, Editor Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced Drought Stress Tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Grown under Hydroponic Culture PONE-D-21-33279R1 Dear Dr. Javed, 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, Jen-Tsung Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260556.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Jen-Tsung Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-33279R1 Exogenous Salicylic acid-induced Drought Stress Tolerance in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Grown under Hydroponic Culture Dear Dr. Javed: 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. Jen-Tsung Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260556.r004

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 .