Salt-Induced Autophagy and Programmed Cell Death in Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript Fedoreyeva et al “Salt Induced Autophagy and Programmed Cell Death in Wheat”- the title is descriptive and does dot clearly show the main outcomes.

The main aim is to identify, in soft and durum wheat, at high concentrations of salt stress, autophagic and PCD indicators. In general,  it is written in clear English but some sentences need revision (eg the objectives,…). 

Abstract: The abstract lacks important data regarding the exposure conditions (eg., what do authors mean by “At high salt concentrations”. Also, should include "target of rapamycin" in the first reference to TOR.  

The introduction overall well presents the main problem of salt stress, PCD, and autophagy, but pertinent aspects linked to some potential novelty of the manuscript were not referred (for example, most references are more than 5yrs old, and there was a boost of research in the last 5 yrs on this subject (eg., Li et al Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5777; Zhang et al J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 39, 867–876; Zhou et al Protoplasma 2021,258 891-904; yue et al 2021 Ecitix, Env. Saf 2021, etc). Also, several studies have also indicated that osmotic, salt, and oxidative stresses may also serve as the upstream signal to repress TOR kinase activity  (eg., https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.01214; doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03305-0; doi: 10.1101/2020.01.15.907899; 10.1093/jxb/erac282; etc);  also the novelty brought by the aims/results regarding the current state of the art on the (well known) accumulation of ROS production triggering autophagy and PCD is not sufficiently developed.

Methods: overall the conceptual approach is credible, combining highly conventional techniques (eg., TEM) with more innovative ones. Statistical approach is ok, but not always clearly shown in results

Results: Several Figures should be reworked (eg., X-axis legend and statistics, and increase the quality of their image). In the results the statistical significance of several results is not clearly shown, compromising a rigorous interpretation of data. TEM images are interesting, however, the bar scale is confusing, but amplification should be higher, as the quality is often lost for details visualization).

Discussion and Conclusions: mostly descriptive, missing important recent references on the subject restricted to the demonstration of the TOR and PCD in wheat varieties. Does not sufficiently explore some studies pinpointing autophagy as a defense strategy (eg., Wang et al 2022). Also, the potential that ATGs are being proposed as good targets for developing resistant crops is not sufficiently explored. Also, conslusions are descriptive, lacking a model going beyond the current state of the art relating the results with functional/mechanistic pathways of tolerance.

Author Response

Thanks for the kind review. Special thanks for the valuable suggestions for discussing the results and conclusions, as well as for references of publications

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the kind review. Special thanks for the valuable suggestions and comments that helped improve the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper which addressed salt-induced autophagy and programmed cell death is essential. However, there are some main points listed as follows needed to be improved:

1. Statistic analysis is needed to perform in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

2. lines 325 and 326, 1.2 times, and 1.1 times showed no significant difference in RNA expression level. Please correct this poimt.

3. Lines 384 and 385 are also needed to correct. Please do the statistic analysis for the relative RNA expression analysis.

4. Almost no citations from recent three years.

5. The minor errors all through the paper must be revised.

6. How to distinct autophagy and programmed cell death?

Author Response

Many thanks for the kind review. We also thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving the publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made necessary improvements (despite the novelty in the discussion remains little).