New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)

Mahmodol Hasan; Motaher Hossain; Daohong Jiang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287899

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2023
17 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor PONE-D-23-08914New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hossain, 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 Jun 01 2023 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, Eugenio Llorens 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: "We would like to thank the authority of Huaxhong Agricultural University, PR China for providing necessary support to conduct this research. We are also greatfull to University of Rajshahi for partial financial support through allocation of special research grant (A-795/6/-109) (rsearch), 2022) to carry out this research." 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: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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: No 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: The manuscript entitled "New 1 endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)" describes the sampling of endophytic fungi from rapeseed and how two strains of Trichoderma are beneficial to the plant. The manuscript is well-written and uses an interesting approach to isolate the fungal strains directly from the plants. Here are some suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript: - Line 118: Fungal identification at the species level using only ITS sequences are not accurate, especially for Trichoderma strains, since several species share the same ITS sequence. I suggest using other loci, like rpb2 and tef1 (Cai & Druzhinina, 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00464-4), or describing it in the paper as unconfirmed species. - Send Table 1 to the supplemental material. - Figure 1 shows very low support values on critical nodes. I recommend rerunning the tree using a better methodology like iqtree selecting the best model automatically. - Table 2: Are these Genbank accession numbers from your sequences or the blast best hit on Genbank? If the latter is true, The authors must deposit the sequences in GenBank and add the accession numbers, and then the readers can replicate the same analysis. Also, the similarity search should be done on specialized databases, like UNITE (https://unite.ut.ee/) - The numbers in the parenthesis on lines 345, 347, and 350 are confusing. Since the authors are already referring to Figure 2, remove them. Also, add the P-value in the figure for each comparison in ALL bar plots present in the manuscript. At least a "" if < 0.05. - Same on lines 387 and 389. It seems the same data shown in Tables 3 and 4 are also shown in Figures 4 and 5, is that correct? If so, remove the tables and include the statistical analysis in the bat plots. - Increase the resolution of the plots. The quality is very low in the manuscript document. - Both Trichoderma strains look good biocontrol candidates. In your opinion, how would they compare to commercial strains such as T. afroharzianum T22? Reviewer #2: GENERAL ASPECTS: - The document presents too many self-citations that are not scientifically justified. For example, the citation [18] is a book chapter and there are numerous papers on the subject that should be cited instead. For example: Poveda, J., Eugui, D., Abril-Urías, P., & Velasco, P. (2021). Endophytic fungi as direct plant growth promoters for sustainable agricultural production. Symbiosis, 85(1), 1-19. OR: J. Poveda, P. Baptista, S. Sacristán, P. Velasco Beneficial effects of fungal endophytes in major agricultural crops. Front. Plant Sci., 13 (2022). - Scientific names are named in full only the first time they appear in the text, then with the genus reduced. Example: B. napus. - Review the function of the genes used in the gene expression study. The Abstract indicates that they are biosynthesis genes, but several genes that are response, not biosynthesis, have been used. - Gene names are always in italics. ABSTRACT: - To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation. INTRODUCTION: - To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation. - Develop a paragraph on the studies developed so far on the Trichoderma-B. napus interaction. There is a review published in 2022 that will be very useful for this: Poveda, J., Díaz-González, S., Díaz-Urbano, M., Velasco, P., & Sacristán, S. (2022). Fungal endophytes of Brassicaceae: Molecular interactions and crop benefits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 932288. SEARCH THE TEXT FOR THE KEY WORDS: "rapeseed" and "napus". MATERIALS AND METHODS: - L118-137: the identification of Trichoderma based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work. - L141: there is an error in "in the following section of this manuscript". The following section does not correspond to what is indicated. - Data analysis: errors when speaking of P. Capitalize or lowercase, but always in italics. RESULTS: - L305-338: the fungal identification based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work. DISCUSSION: - Discuss further the reported in planta effects. There are many papers on Trichoderma-Rapeseed interaction and its effect on productivity, growth or ISR, which have not been discussed. ******* 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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r001
Revision 1
31 May 2023 Author Response Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled "New 1 endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)" describes the sampling of endophytic fungi from rapeseed and how two strains of Trichoderma are beneficial to the plant. The manuscript is well-written and uses an interesting approach to isolate the fungal strains directly from the plants. Here are some suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Response: We thankfully acknowledge your overall positive comment on our manuscript. We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. We have used Word Track Changes to mark up the manuscripts with revisions. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication. Comment#1 Line 118: Fungal identification at the species level using only ITS sequences are not accurate, especially for Trichoderma strains, since several species share the same ITS sequence. I suggest using other loci, like rpb2 and tef1 (Cai & Druzhinina, 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00464-4), or describing it in the paper as unconfirmed species. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The species-level identification has been omitted and only Trichoderma spp. (ReTk1 and ReTv2) have been used throughout the manuscript. Moreover, we have added sentences describing the need to use additional loci for species-level identification of the two strains citing the aboved reference (L454-459) . Comment#2 Send Table 1 to the supplemental material. Response: Table 1 has been transferred to supplemental material as Table S1. Comment#3 Figure 1 shows very low support values on critical nodes. I recommend rerunning the tree using a better methodology like iq-tree, selecting the best model automatically. Response: Thank you for the valuable comments. We agree with you that IQ-TREE is a better methodology. However, we are not experts in using IQ-TREE. Therefore, we reanalyzed the tree using the latest version (v.11) of MEGA and cited a reference supporting this analysis in the Materials and Methods (L227). The new Figure 1 has been added to the manuscript. Comment#4 Table 2: Are these Genbank accession numbers from your sequences or the blast best hit on Genbank? If the latter is true, The authors must deposit the sequences in GenBank and add the accession numbers, and then the readers can replicate the same analysis. Also, the similarity search should be done on specialized databases, like UNITE (https://unite.ut.ee/) Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. The GenBank accession numbers of our sequences have been added to Table 1. The similarity search has been done using BLASTn databases. Comment#5 The numbers in the parenthesis on lines 345, 347, and 350 are confusing. Since the authors are already referring to Figure 2, remove them. Also, add the P-value in the figure for each comparison in ALL bar plots present in the manuscript. At least a "*" if < 0.05. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The values in the parenthesis have been removed. The P-value has been added to the bar plots in all figures. Comment# 6 Same on lines 387 and 389. It seems the same data shown in Tables 3 and 4 are also shown in Figures 4 and 5; is that correct? If so, remove the tables and include the statistical analysis in the bat plots. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The values indicating the percent increase have been removed. However, Table 3 and Figure 4 and Table 4 and Figure 5 are not showing the same data. Table 3 represents the treatment effects on clubroot incidence and severity index of rapeseed in field soil and planting mix. In contrast, Table 4 denotes the application timing of Trichoderma spp. on clubroot severity index in field soil and planting mix. Figure 4 represents the root hair infection and Figure 5 represents the treatment effect on suppression of club root formation. Comment# 7 Increase the resolution of the plots. The quality is very low in the manuscript document. Response: The resolution of the plots has been enhanced. So, the quality is now improved. Comment#8 Both Trichoderma strains look good biocontrol candidates. In your opinion, how would they compare to commercial strains such as T. afroharzianum T22? Response: Thank you for your valuable statement. Trichoderma spp. are well-known biocontrol agents and widely used worldwide, although their effectiveness varies from strain to strain. In our study, we isolated two strains that show good biocontrol and growth promotion activity. As T. afroharzianum T22 is a commercial strain, it is obviously a promising biocontrol agent. As per our opinion, the isolated two strains and T22 could be good candidate biocontrol agents for reducing clubroot severity and enhancing the growth of rapeseed. Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We also very much appreciate your overall comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Please see below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. Word Track Changes have been used to note up revisions in the manuscripts. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication. Comment#1 GENERALASPECTS: The document presents too many self-citations that are not scientifically justified. For example, the citation [18] is a book chapter and there are numerous papers on the subject that should be cited instead. For example: Poveda, J., Eugui, D., Abril-Urías, P., & Velasco, P. (2021). Endophytic fungi as direct plant growth promoters for sustainable agricultural production. Symbiosis, 85(1), 1-19. OR: J. Poveda, P. Baptista, S. Sacristán, P. Velasco. Beneficial effects of fungal endophytes in major agricultural crops. Front. Plant Sci., 13 (2022). Response: We thank the Reviewer for making this suggestion. Following your advice, we have replaced and added new references to the manuscript (L104). Comment#2 Scientific names are named in full only the first time they appear in the text, then with the genus reduced. Example: B. napus. Response: Thank you for critical reviewing. The scientific name has been corrected in the manuscript according to your suggestion. Comment#3 Review the function of the genes used in the gene expression study. The Abstract indicates that they are biosynthesis genes, but several genes that are response, not biosynthesis, have been used. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the sentence in the Abstract (L42) following your suggestion. Comment 4 Gene names are always in italics. Response: All the gene names have been written in italics. Comment#5 ABSTRACT: To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation. Response: A sentence describing the importance of rapeseed cultivation has been added in the Abstract (L24-25). Comment#5 INTRODUCTION: To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation. Response: The importance of rapeseed cultivation has been described in Introduction (L62-65). Comment#6 Develop a paragraph on the studies developed so far on the Trichoderma-B. napus interaction. There is a review published in 2022 that will be very useful for this: Poveda, J., Díaz-González, S., Díaz-Urbano, M., Velasco, P., & Sacristán, S. (2022). Fungal endophytes of Brassicaceae: Molecular interactions and crop benefits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 932288. SEARCH THE TEXT FOR THE KEYWORDS: "rapeseed" and "napus". Response: We appreciate your suggestion. A paragraph on the discussion of Trichoderma-B. napus interaction has been added in the Introduction (L104-164). Comment 7 MATERIALS AND METHODS: L118-137: Identifying Trichoderma based only on ITS does not allow us to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work. Response: We have accepted your suggestion and identified the fungal strains only at the genus level, such as Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTV2 (L455-460). Comment 8 L141: there is an error in "in the following section of this manuscript". The following section does not correspond to what is indicated. Response: We have corrected the statement as “described in the later section of this manuscript” (From L232-233). The method has been described Comment 8 Data analysis: errors when speaking of P. Capitalize or lowercase, but always in italics. Response: Now this has been italicized (p). Comment 9 RESULTS: L305-338: the fungal identification based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work. Response: We have identified the fungi at the species such as only Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTV2 and corrected it thoughout the manuscript. Comment#10 DISCUSSION: Discuss further the reported in planta effects. There are many papers on Trichoderma-Rapeseed interaction and its effect on productivity, growth or ISR, which have not been discussed. Response: A paragraph on Trichoderma-B. napus interaction has already been added in the “Introduction” section following your suggestion (L104-164). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r002
6 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor PONE-D-23-08914R1New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hossain, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that the manuscript could be accepted for publication after the small corrections suggested by one of the reviewers. 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 Jul 21 2023 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, Eugenio Llorens 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: The manuscript was clearly improved, but I still have two recommendations: - Drop the Figure 1 with the phylogenetic tree, the support values are too low and the grouping seems random and uninformative. Therefore, it's not adding relevant information to the manuscript. - Regarding the "" on figures 2B,3C,4 and 5B: is not clear what it means. Just add a "" on top of the bar where the comparison with the control is significant. The way it's shown, there's no way to know which comparison is significant. Reviewer #2: Thank you for making all the requested changes. I believe that the document has been substantially improved and is suitable for publication. Congratulations for the work done and much success in your future work. ******** 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: 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.] 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r003
Revision 2
11 Jun 2023 Author Response Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments Reviewer #1: We thankfully acknowledge your overall positive comment on our manuscript. We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. We have used Word Track Changes to mark up the manuscripts with revisions. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication. Comment 1 Drop the Figure 1 with the phylogenetic tree, the support values are too low and the grouping seems random and uninformative. Therefore, it's not adding relevant information to the manuscript.. Response Thank you for your suggestion. We have droped the Figure 1. Comment 2 Regarding the "" on figures 2B,3C,4 and 5B: is not clear what it means. Just add a "" on top of the bar where the comparison with the control is significant. The way it's shown, there's no way to know which comparison is significant. Response We have amended Figures 2B, 3C, 4 and 5B following your suggestion. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r004
15 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus) PONE-D-23-08914R2 Dear Dr. Hossain, 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, Eugenio Llorens 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 #1: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors addressed all comments and removed the problematic figure. Now it's ready for publication. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Eugenio Llorens, Editor PONE-D-23-08914R2 New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus) Dear Dr. Hossain: 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. Eugenio Llorens Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r006

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 .