Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2023
Decision Letter - Richard A Wilson, Editor

PONE-D-23-08909Endophyte genomes support greater metabolic gene cluster diversity compared with non-endophytes in TrichodermaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Scott,

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.

This was an interesting study that is likely to have far-reaching implications for understanding fungal endophytes going forward. I apologize for the delay in getting this back to you, I lost contact with one reviewer. However, I have read the manuscript thoroughly and I agree with Reviewer 1's assessment of the work. Please attempt to address all their comments as throughly as possible.

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,

Richard A. Wilson

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DEB-1638999) to JCS and by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (SEP-210615880-TRADEOFF) to EGT."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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 work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/) (DEB-1638999) to JCS and by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/ ) (SEP-210615880-TRADEOFF) to EGT.

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.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 by Scott et al is a comprehensive comparative genomic analysis of Trichoderma genomes. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

1. Please define the terms mycotrophy and saprotrophy. For mycotrophy in particular, it was unclear to me how this term relates to endotrophy and mycoparasitism.

2. I'd encourage the authors to read through the results section again carefully and add additional references throughout. Example statements that are missing attribution include lines 217, 221, 244, 884. References for Bloomberg's K, Pagel's Lambda, Fritz and Purvis' D-statistic are provided in the methods, but i think it would be helpful to include their references in the results section as well (lines 280, 293).

3. Can the author's perform a topology test to confirm that a constrained phylogeny in which Trichoderma easA genes group with other Hypocreales is significantly worse than the unconstrained best tree? I think this would be a nice additional bit of evidence to support the claim of HGT.

**********

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

**********

[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

Reviewer 1’s comments:

Please define the terms mycotrophy and saprotrophy. For mycotrophy in particular, it was unclear to me how this term relates to endotrophy and mycoparasitism.

Information has been added to the text as suggested (Lines 69-74). The introductory paragraph has been reworded to clarify the differences between lifestyle (endophyte/soil/wood/fungi) and nutritional mode (mycotroph aka mycoparasitism/saprotroph).

I'd encourage the authors to read through the results section again carefully and add additional references throughout. Example statements that are missing attribution include lines 217, 221, 244, 884. References for Bloomberg's K, Pagel's Lambda, Fritz and Purvis' D-statistic are provided in the methods, but i think it would be helpful to include their references in the results section as well (lines 280, 293).

References and comments have been added to the suggested lines.

Can the author's perform a topology test to confirm that a constrained phylogeny in which Trichoderma easA genes group with other Hypocreales is significantly worse than the unconstrained best tree? I think this would be a nice additional bit of evidence to support the claim of HGT.

Thank you for the recommendation to perform topology testing as we agree this would help support the inference of HGT. We conducted constraint analysis using the approximately unbiased topology tests (Table S7, referenced in revised text) and these indeed show topologies constrained to conform to vertical inheritance are significantly worse than the consensus tree.

Additional comments regarding Editor’s edits/comments:

As requested, permit information added to methods (Lines 901-904).

As requested, we would like to amend our Funding Statement as follows:

“This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/): (DEB-1638999/DEB-1638976) to JCS and PC and (DEB-925672/DEB-1019972) to PC. This work was also supported by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/ ) (SEP-210615880-TRADEOFF) to EGT.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Abstract was amended so that the online submission form abstract and abstract in manuscript are identical.

The order of the reference list was changed due to the added requested citations, as well as the modified order of citations in the manuscript.

Additional formatting changes (header font size, case) were made to the manuscript to comply with the PLOS ONE format guidelines.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-08909.docx
Decision Letter - Richard A Wilson, Editor

Endophyte genomes support greater metabolic gene cluster diversity compared with non-endophytes in Trichoderma

PONE-D-23-08909R1

Dear Dr. Scott,

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,

Richard A Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Richard A Wilson, Editor

PONE-D-23-08909R1

Endophyte genomes support greater metabolic gene cluster diversity compared with non-endophytes in Trichoderma

Dear Dr. Scott:

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. Richard A Wilson

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 .