Next Article in Journal
In planta Production and Validation of Neuraminidase Derived from Genotype 4 Reassortant Eurasian Avian-like H1N1 Virus as a Vaccine Candidate
Next Article in Special Issue
Engineering Resistance against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Using a Truncated NLR (TNx) and a Defense-Priming Gene
Previous Article in Journal
Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Omic Approaches Reveal Molecular Mechanisms of Tolerance during Soybean and Meloidogyne incognita Interactions
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Time Course RNA-seq Reveals Soybean Responses against Root-Lesion Nematode and Resistance Players

Plants 2022, 11(21), 2983; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212983
by Valéria Stefania Lopes-Caitar 1,2, Rafael Bruno Guayato Nomura 2,3, Suellen Mika Hishinuma-Silva 2,3, Mayra Costa da Cruz Gallo de Carvalho 4, Ricardo Vilela Abdelnoor 2, Waldir Pereira Dias 2 and Francismar Corrêa Marcelino-Guimarães 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Plants 2022, 11(21), 2983; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212983
Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 23 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 4 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Defense-Related Proteins of Higher Plants)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper of Lopes-Caitar et al describes the transcriptome profile of different soybean genotypes against the root lesion nematode Pratylenchus brachyurus. The presented data is interesting in the light of the plant responses to this particular nematode, using time course RNA-seq data. The paper shows relevant information and is interesting for scientists working in molecular research of plant-parasitic nematodes. Although the paper provides relevant information, some of the analyses are either non informative, could be done in more precise manner or might be considered preliminary due to the lack of effective mRNA-seq biological replicates. Depending on the policy of your journal, this study can be considered acceptable, however, with the caveat of the low number of technical mRNA-seq replicates.

 

Major remarks

 

Lines 669-673 and 677 and 678: the RNA collected from the different biological replicates were pooled together for RNA-seq, which in fact will constitute an overall single biological replicate. Meaning that all subsequent analyses are based on one biological mRNA-seq replication for each time point after nematode infection. For such type of experiments, a minimum of three effective sequenced bio-replicates are required to produce accurate results. The overall quality of the RNA-seq data often depends on the reproducibility among replicates. Therefore, appropriate number of biological replicates is of critical importance because low replicate number have insufficient statistical power to correctly predict DEGs. Besides, replicates are also essential to resolve false-positive calls such as mapping artifacts or possible contaminations. Therefore, analyzing RNA-seq data without effective sequenced biological replicates might have a more preliminary rather than conclusive value.

 

Lines 253-255: Not very clear why the unmapped reads where mapped to P. penetrans transcriptome, especially to a very incomplete dataset (i.e., 488 contigs only). Would it possible to generate a de novo assembly of the non-mapped reads against soybean, and then remapped those unmapped reads to the new transcriptome? This would not only provide a more accurate result but could also provide additional information of the nematode DGEs in both soybean cultivars. This could corroborate the hypothesis discussed in lines 457-471.

 

Other remarks:

 

Line 54: Not clear the meaning that “Plant-RLN interaction are considered new in terms of evolution”. In fact, should be the opposite, the interaction of sedentary nematodes is considered more specialized and newer in the light of plant-nematode parasitism evolution.

 

Line 94-111: The authors should reference other recent studies on this field such as: Channale et al. 2021 (Scientific Reports 11: 17491); Rahaman et al. 2021 (Plant Molecular Biology 106: 381-406); Vieira et al. 2019 (Front Plant Sci 10: 971).

 

Lines 174-255: Instead of using the gene codes “Glyma.0…”, I would suggest including the gene function instead. This will provide a much better understanding of DGEs among both cultivars tested.

 

Lines 658: Can the authors clarify what are infectious forms of RLN? 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time and read our manuscript. All your suggestions are very important to us. Please, find more in our cover letter for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper by Lopes-Caita et al., is very intersting with a lot of information on gene expression differences between the two genotypes of soybean. Thus I believe that it must be published because this is the first time that authors describe what happens in plant in presence of RLN. My only concern is on the length of the paper and a lot of expression data  described. I suggest to reduce and to be shorter even in the discussion section.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time and read our manuscript. All your suggestions are very important to us. Please, find more in our cover letter for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have follow some recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors also acknowledge that performing additional biological replicates will be ideal for such type of work. In my opinion, this is one of the weakest points of the manuscript and will have an overall impact on the downstream analyses and interpretation of the results.

As mentioned before, I will leave the final decision to the editors of the journal to decide whether the use of a single technical replication will be satisfactory for such type of work.

Back to TopTop