Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesis

Maryam Shirani-Bidabadi; Farhad Nazarian-Firouzabadi; Karim Sorkheh; Ahmad Ismaili

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297334

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 26, 2023
30 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Karthikeyan Adhimoolam, Editor PONE-D-23-23589Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum l.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nazarian‐Firouzabadi, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: I request authors to follow the reviewer's suggestions and revise the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 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, Karthikeyan Adhimoolam 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: “This research was partly supported by a grant from Lorestan University.” 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 authors 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. 4. 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. 5. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [Supporting Information_Plos one.rar]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. [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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum l.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesis” presents the interesting study on potato tuber development and starch biosynthesis. The article is generally well-written and organized, presenting the methodology, results, and implications of the study in a clear and concise manner. The article will make a valuable contribution to the scientific literature in this field. However, I recommend to address the following comments and resubmit. Comment 1: Line 13-15 can be rewritten as: "Many genes play major roles in different pathways, including carbohydrate metabolism during the potato tuber's life cycle," to increase the readability of the sentence. Comment 2: In line 97, mention the pot mixture and whether it will influence tuber formation. Comment 3: In line 98, mention the year in which the experiment was carried out. Also, mention how the light and dark conditions were maintained. Comment 4: In line 100, mention the days after planting at which samples are taken for the study. Also, mention the size of the tubers. Comment 5: Mention the agronomic performance of the cultivar and why a particular cultivar was preferred for the study. Comment 6: In line 107, provide the company name/instrument name instead of the country. Comment 7: Mention whether the statistical enrichment of DEGs was tested. If tested, mention the software used. Comment 8: Mention whether the starch content of the potato tuber was analyzed at different stages. Comment 9: In line 172-174, rearrange the sentence to read: "635 genes, followed by 315 genes, and then 234 genes." Comment 10: All the protocols and software used should be mentioned only in the Materials and Methods section, not in the Results and Discussion. Comment 11: Mention a few important DEGs identified in the study and their role in tuber formation. Comment 12: Figures were given in the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. It disrupts the quality of the figures. Hence, please provide them in JPEG or PNG format according to the journal's requirements. Comment 13: Figure 1 is illegible. Please consider improving the quality for better readability. Comment 14: Even though the manuscript is grammatically sound, the complexity of a few sentences may puzzle readers. Hence, consider using simpler sentences to attract more readers. Reviewer #2: Introduction The introduction prepared well and the recent literatures were cited Lno; 55-57 include proper citations Methodology The methodology lacks many technical information and need to enhance the English Mention year and station of the experiment conducted Lno 105; rna quality checked in gel or nanodrop, mention properly Lno 109; how 18 samples selected and what are all the six samples , is there any replication means mention properly Lno 114; is it Trimmomatic version 3-6 or 3.6 ? Lno123: what are all the different databases like NCBI nr, uniprot, etc Concise the RT PCR portions Results Lno 156: method and software should not repeat here. Give raw reads and filtered reads and the statistics table about the rnaseq reads The obtained results not clearly explained and mainly not able to understand the concept Need to improve the manuscript results section with proper English editing Discussions Well discussed with previous reports Figures Include significance in Fig 6 can try with the better visualization graphs like volcano plot, kegg and gene ontology bar graphs it helps to better understanding for readers. Introduction: The introduction is well-prepared and appropriately cites recent literature. However, there is a need to provide proper citations for lines 55-57. Methodology: The methodology lacks technical details and requires improvement in English. Additionally, it would be helpful to mention the year and station where the experiment was conducted. Line 105: Clarify whether RNA quality was checked using gel electrophoresis or a Nanodrop, and provide proper details. Line 109: Explain how the 18 samples were selected and provide information about the six samples. Mention if there were any replications and provide proper clarification. Line 114: Specify whether it is Trimmomatic version 3-6 or 3.6. Line 123: List the different databases used Concise the RT-PCR sections for better clarity. Results: Line 156: Ensure that the method and software are not repeated in this section. Provide information on raw reads and filtered reads, and include a statistics table for RNA-seq reads. The obtained results are not clearly explained, and the underlying concept is hard to understand. Consider improving the English and structure of the results section. Discussions: The discussion is well-structured and references previous reports effectively. Figures: In Figure 6, include a description of the significance. Consider using better visualization methods, such as volcano plots, KEGG and gene ontology bar graphs, to enhance reader understanding. Overall: Mainly need English editorial activity for this manuscript otherwise objective of the study and implementation are satisfactory. ****** 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: Yes: Vijayakumar Eswaramoorthy 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.0297334.r001
Revision 1
19 Nov 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesis” presents the interesting study on potato tuber development and starch biosynthesis. The article is generally well-written and organized, presenting the methodology, results, and implications of the study in a clear and concise manner. The article will make a valuable contribution to the scientific literature in this field. However, I recommend to address the following comments and resubmit. Authors’s Response: We are grateful to the respected reviewer for his/her gentle compliment as well as constructive comments. Comment 1: Line 13-15 can be rewritten as: "Many genes play major roles in different pathways, including carbohydrate metabolism during the potato tuber's life cycle," to increase the readability of the sentence. Authors’s Response: Revised accordingly. Comment 2: In line 97, mention the pot mixture and whether it will influence tuber formation. Authors’s Response: Characteristics of the Marfona cultivar and soil type used for planting have been added to the manuscript. Comment 3: In line 98, mention the year in which the experiment was carried out. Also, mention how the light and dark conditions were maintained. Authors’s Response: Experiment was conducted in 2016. Maintenance conditions have already been mentioned in Line 102-103. Comment 4: In line 100, mention the days after planting at which samples are taken for the study. Also, mention the size of the tubers. Authors’s Response: Sampling was done 6 weeks after planting. The size and the shape of samples were according to the description in the material and methods (figure 1). Comment 5: Mention the agronomic performance of the cultivar and why a particular cultivar was preferred for the study. Authors’s Response: Marfona cultivar is a popular early baker, high-yielding, resistance to dry rot, and susceptible to potato cyst nematode that is cultivated worldwide. Characteristics of the Marfona cultivar have been added to the text. Comment 6: In line 107, provide the company name/instrument name instead of the country. Authors’s Response: Novogene Bioinformatics Technology is a company based in Beijing, China Comment 7: Mention whether the statistical enrichment of DEGs was tested. If tested, mention the software used. Authors’s Response: Thank you for the comment. DEGs are the output of Deseq2 package. As mentioned in the manuscript, The DESeq2 package calculate differential expression based on the negative binomial distribution model which is a strong statistical package based on R-language. By default, Deseq2 uses the Wald test (a chi-square test). Comment 8: Mention whether the starch content of the potato tuber was analyzed at different stages. Authors’s Response: Appreciate for the comment. Unfortunately, we did not analyzed the starch content of developing tubers due to small size of tuber stages. We needed a delicate/sensitive kit in order to measure the small amount of starch present in tiny tubers. Unfortunately measuring carbohydrates with available manual protocols did not give us an accurate estimate of tiny tubers starch content. Comment 9: In line 172-174, rearrange the sentence to read: "635 genes, followed by 315 genes, and then 234 genes." Authors’s Response: We appreciate. Revised accordingly. Comment 10: All the protocols and software used should be mentioned only in the Materials and Methods section, not in the Results and Discussion. Authors’s Response: Appreciate, redundant methods and softwares were deleted from the results and discussion sections. Comment 11: Mention a few important DEGs identified in the study and their role in tuber formation. Authors’s Response: We have already mentioned and discussed DEGs associated with starch biosynthesis in results and discussion sections. Comment 12: Figures were given in the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. It disrupts the quality of the figures. Hence, please provide them in JPEG or PNG format according to the journal's requirements. Authors’s Response: Appreciate, we will try whether it can be possible to submit figure individually. Comment 13: Figure 1 is illegible. Please consider improving the quality for better readability. Authors’s Response: We tried to enhance the quality of photos taken from tuber developmental stages. We think the quality is now acceptable. I wish we had taken the pictures with professional cameras, with a great regret we did not have one!! Comment 14: Even though the manuscript is grammatically sound, the complexity of a few sentences may puzzle readers. Hence, consider using simpler sentences to attract more readers. Authors’s Response: We are grateful to the respected reviewer. We had asked a native speaker to read the manuscript. We went through the manuscript and fixed some of the typo/grammar mistakes. Reviewer #2: Introduction The introduction prepared well and the recent literatures were cited Lno; 55-57 include proper citations Authors’s Response: Appreciate, appropriate citations were added. Methodology The methodology lacks many technical information and need to enhance the English Mention year and station of the experiment conducted Authors’s Response: Appreciate, Revised accordingly. Lno 105; rna quality checked in gel or nanodrop, mention properly Authors’s Response: Ambiguity was fixed. The new sentence meaning that the quality and quantity of RNA was double checked by both methods. Lno 109; how 18 samples selected and what are all the six samples, is there any replication means mention properly Authors’s Response: RNA samples were selected for sequencing based on RIN number (RIN>7). Details have been incorporated in the manuscript. Lno 114; is it Trimmomatic version 3-6 or 3.6 ? Authors’s Response: Appreciate, we used Trimmomatic version 0.36 . Lno123: what are all the different databases like NCBI nr, uniprot, etc Concise the RT PCR portions Authors’s Response: We used Go and NCBI non-redundant databases. RT-qPCR details have been already mentioned in Line 153-155. Results Lno 156: method and software should not repeat here. Authors’s Response: Appreciate, redundant methods and softwares were deleted from the results section. Give raw reads and filtered reads and the statistics table about the rnaseq reads The obtained results not clearly explained and mainly not able to understand the concept Need to improve the manuscript results section with proper English editing Authors’s Response:We are most grateful to the respected reviewer. We have now added table 1, showing the summary of read numbers based on the RNA-Seq data analysis from developing potato tuber stages. Discussions Well discussed with previous reports Authors’s Response: Our best greetings for respected reviewer nice compliment. Figures Include significance in Fig 6 can try with the better visualization graphs like volcano plot, kegg and gene ontology bar graphs it helps to better understanding for readers. Authors’s Response: Expressions were compared with student t-test relative to SI. The figure 6 graph has now been modified with statistics signs showing the differences. We agree with the respected reviewer to use volcano plot, however, since the number of genes investigated are small, volcano plot does not look informative. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_Shirani Plos one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297334.r002
18 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Karthikeyan Adhimoolam, Editor PONE-D-23-23589R1Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nazarian‐Firouzabadi, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: I suggest following the reviewer's suggestions and modifying the manuscript. Also, I recommend improving the english language. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 01 2024 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, Karthikeyan Adhimoolam 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: No 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: Dear Author, I hope this message finds you well .I appreciate the valuable contribution your research. While the content of your article is robust and insightful, I have noted a few areas where attention to English language usage and clarity could enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Please consider removing the words like "generally speaking". I observed that there seems to be an overlap in the presentation of materials and methods, specifically pertaining to software, in both the Materials and Methods section and the Results section. To ensure clarity and adherence to the conventional structure of scientific manuscripts, it is recommended to confine details regarding materials, including software, strictly to the Materials and Methods section. Kindly consider revisiting the Results section and refraining from introducing new materials and methods information. If any software or specific methods are crucial to understanding the results, it would be best to reference the earlier Materials and Methods section where they are appropriately detailed. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: ARIHARASUTHARSAN G ******** [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.0297334.r003
Revision 2
1 Jan 2024 Author Response ACADEMIC EDITOR: I suggest following the reviewer's suggestions and modifying the manuscript. Also, I recommend improving the english language. Author’s Response: Thank you so much for your suggestion. We had our manuscript revised by a native speakers. Reviewer #1: I hope this message finds you well .I appreciate the valuable contribution your research. While the content of your article is robust and insightful, I have noted a few areas where attention to English language usage and clarity could enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Please consider removing the words like "generally speaking". Author’s Response: we appreciate the respected reviewer comments. We had our manuscript revised by a native speakers. I observed that there seems to be an overlap in the presentation of materials and methods, specifically pertaining to software, in both the Materials and Methods section and the Results section. To ensure clarity and adherence to the conventional structure of scientific manuscripts, it is recommended to confine details regarding materials, including software, strictly to the Materials and Methods section. Author’s Response: Thank you so much for your constructing comment. We omitted the overlapping material and methods details from the results section. Kindly consider revisiting the Results section and refraining from introducing new materials and methods information. If any software or specific methods are crucial to understanding the results, it would be best to reference the earlier Materials and Methods section where they are appropriately detailed. Author’s Response: We went through the result section and deleted the unnecessary material and methods details. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297334.r004
3 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Karthikeyan Adhimoolam, Editor Transcriptomic analysis of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tuber development reveals new insights into starch biosynthesis PONE-D-23-23589R2 Dear Dr. Farhad, 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, Karthikeyan Adhimoolam 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: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Vijayakumar Eswaramoorthy ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297334.r005
Formally Accepted
27 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Karthikeyan Adhimoolam, Editor PONE-D-23-23589R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nazarian‐Firouzabadi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Karthikeyan Adhimoolam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297334.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 .