A new synonym for Viburnum erosum (Viburnaceae) in East China, based on morphological and molecular evidence

Liaocheng Zhao; Yitian Wang; Wenjun Lyu; Zijian Tang; Lihong Qiu; Ming Tang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312920

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 15, 2024
15 Oct 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312920.r001
27 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Alia Ahmed, Editor PONE-D-24-45964A new synonym for Viburnum erosum (Viburnaceae) in East China, based on morphological and molecular evidencePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tang, 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 Mar 13 2025 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, Alia Ahmed 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 financial disclosure: [National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 31960043)]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [We are grateful to the curators of the herbaria of A, AU, BNU, CCAU, CDBI, CSFI, CSH, FJFC, FKP, GFS, GNNU, GZTM, HNNU, HZ, IBK, IBSC, IFP, JIU, JXAU, K, KUN, L, NAS, NF, P, PE, QFNU, SDF, SZG, UPS, US, XBG, WCSBG and WUK for allowing us to examine and use their scanned images of specimens, especially for UPS providing the holotype of Viburnum erosum, where further promote our research. In addition, we would like to express gratitude to researcher Ren Chen of the South China National Botanical Garden of the Chinese Academy of Sciences for his constructive guidance. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 31960043).]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: [National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 31960043)]. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;- The values used to build graphs;- The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. Please include a caption for figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 6. Please upload a copy of S1 Table to which you refer in your text on page 9. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. If the Supplementary file is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an interesting contribution to the taxonomy of Viburnaceae and represents a proposal for synonymization supported by objective tools. Some comments and corrections have been included in the file in order to make the manuscript clearer. Reviewer #2: Strengths: Integration of molecular and morphological data. Well-structured manuscript with clear figures. Valuable contribution to Viburnum taxonomy. Weaknesses: Limited molecular sampling reduces the generality of conclusions. Insufficient discussion on ecological and conservation implications. Methodological details, especially bioinformatics, need clarification. Limited comparison with prior phylogenetic studies. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-45964_reviewer.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-45964.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312920.r002
Revision 1
18 Feb 2025 Author Response 15 February 2025 Dear Reviewers, We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the points raised in your review, and the revised manuscript now incorporates these changes. A clean version of the manuscript, along with a version highlighting all modifications (in red), has been uploaded for your convenience. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments, detailing the specific revisions made. Once again, we thank you for your time and expertise in evaluating our work. We believe the manuscript has been substantially strengthened through this revision process, and we look forward to your further feedback. Yours sincerely, Ming Tang On behalf of all authors Response to Anonymous Reviewer 1: Comment 1: Addition of references for Adoxa, Tetradoxa and Sinadoxa. Response: References for Adoxa Linnaeus [6], Tetradoxa C.Y. Wu [7], and Sinadoxa C.Y. Wu, Z.L. Wu & R.F. Huang [8] have been integrated into the reference section. Comment 2: Clarification on the nomenclature of Viburnaceae. Response: The taxonomic rationale for retaining Viburnaceae has been revised to align with the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN) guidelines (Lines 42–45). Specifically, we emphasize that Viburnaceae was conserved under ICN Article 14.10, whereas the proposal to "superconserve" Adoxaceae was rejected, as per the rulings of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants. Comment 3: Are such characteristics: leaf size, stipule length, indumentum density on abaxial leaves and seed, commonly used to recognize species in this genera? Response: These morphological features are widely recognized as critical taxonomic criteria for identify Viburnum sect. Odontotinus [2,4], with both V. erosum and V. fengyangshanense being taxonomically placed within this section. Response to Anonymous Reviewer 2: Weakness 1: Limited molecular sampling reduces the generality of conclusions. Response: In this study, we conducted comprehensive sampling of 64 samples representing 61 species and 3 varieties across 11 taxonomic sections within Viburnum, encompassing 83.4% (73 species) of the total Viburnum species distributed in China. Notably, sect. Odontotinus was particularly well-represented, with 19 species and 2 varieties sampled, accounting for 86.4% (22 species) of its Chinese distribution. This extensive sampling strategy provides a robust framework for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of Chinese Viburnum and offers critical evidence for resolving the phylogenetic placements of V. erosum and V. fengyangshanense. Weakness 2: Insufficient discussion on ecological and conservation implications. Response: A new subsection “Conservation Implications” has been added (Line 175-197 in “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx”) Weakness 3: Methodological details, especially bioinformatics, need clarification. Response: The Materials and Methods section now details: In this study, we employed second-generation high-throughput sequencing to generate complete chloroplast genomes and nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) assemblies for four Viburnum taxa: V. erosum, V. fengyangshanense, V. lancifolium, and V. squamulosum. Three plastid markers (matK, rbcL, and ndhF) were extracted from the chloroplast genomes using Geneious Prime software, while nrITS sequences were isolated and curated with ITSx. Although whole chloroplast genome data were generated, phylogenetic analyses focused on these three plastid loci combined with nrITS due to the limited availability of complete chloroplast genome sequences for Chinese Viburnum species. This marker combination strategically targets evolutionarily informative regions that are widely represented in existing datasets, enabling comprehensive phylogenetic comparisons across Chinese Viburnum lineages. (Line 110-127 in “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx”) Weakness 4: Limited comparison with prior phylogenetic studies Response: The primary objective of this study is to elucidate the phylogenetic relationship betweenV. erosum and V. fengyangshanense through integrated morphological and molecular evidence. Our findings robustly support the monophyly of the Viburnum and the sect. Odontotinus (BS = 98, PP = 1.00). Notably, the samples of V. fengyangshanense form a well-supported clade (BS = 95, PP = 0.99) with two accessions of V. erosum, which providing conclusive evidence to resolve the phylogenetic placement of these taxa. These results not only achieve the primary aim of this study but also offer new insights into the evolutionary history of the Viburnum lineage in East Asia. (Line 162-171 in “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx”) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312920.r003
20 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Alia Ahmed, Editor A new synonym for Viburnum erosum (Viburnaceae) in East China, based on morphological and molecular evidence PONE-D-24-45964R1 Dear Dr. TANG, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Alia Ahmed Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312920.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Alia Ahmed, Editor PONE-D-24-45964R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tang, 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. Alia Ahmed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312920.r005

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 .