Correction: Cai et al. Roles of Three FgPel Genes in the Development and Pathogenicity Regulation of Fusarium graminearum. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 666

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the manuscript is well written and the experiments were perfectly performed, but 

1. The restoration of the phenotype of each deltant strain by the reintroduction of the corresponding Wt gene has been missing all along of the experiments.

2. is it possible that the deletion of one of the FfPel gene could alter the transcription of the other two genes? these experiment is also missing in the results.

3. is it possible for the three different genes to have redundant functions? the proper experiments are also missing

4. When are the three FgPal genes transcribed?

 

 

line 22. correct “concentrationsm”  

line 22. “with the inhibition of what? reprase it to make it clear

Line 29. correct “exter-nal”

Line 30. correct “F. graminearumwithout”

Line 37. correct “[1-3].F. ”

The different domains represented with different colors in Figure 1 Panel A,  are not described in the text or the figure legend. Are these putative enzymes secreted? if so, indicate the signal motif.

line 236. “27932.72 to 79828.43 Da,” check with those MW of Table 1.

Figure 4. In c and D, the font sizes of the name of the strains make them bigger for a better visualization.

Panel B. in which media?

Line 288. “(Fig. 2A, B)”.  could not find the corresponding figures. check

Lines 292-293. These results indicate that deletion of the pectin lyase gene had no effect on the growth of 292 F. graminearum.  be specific under which conditions

Figure 5, Panel C. are two sets of photos, taht are not properly described in figure legend.

Figure 4. In c and D, the font sizes of the name of the strains make them bigger for a better visualization.

Panel B. in which media?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors selected and analyzed three pectin lyase genes (Fgpel1, 2, 3) of Fusarium graminearum and generated mutants.  The gene deletion mutants affected the morphology and growth rate of F. graminearum in the media containing pectin.  Pathogenicity assays demonstrated that deletion mutants significantly reduced the ability of F. graminearum to infest corn silks and wheat ears.

 

 

The manuscript presented some new information on identification and characterization of F. graminearum pectin lyase genes. My major concern is that there are no complementation experiments for the deletion mutants. It is needed to conduct complementation to confirm the function of three pectin lyase genes for publication.

 

Other minor points:

 

Please clarify you are working on wheat blight not wheat blast. These diseases are caused by different fungal pathogens. Line 46 and others

 

Line 45-49, why are you focus on Aspergillus instead of Fusarium? There are multiple reports on Fusarium fungicide resistant strains in the literatures.

 

Fig.1A, I am surprised there are no signal peptides are labeled? All theses proteins are secreted proteins?

 

Table 1 Number of amino acids from mature protein or including signal peptides?  

 

Line 45: 20 mL of pectin medium, please clarify what you used. Liquid media or agar plate. From Fig.4A, it appears you used agar plate. What else in the medium? Need some details.

Fig. 4A should include a control without pectin.

 

I do not think Fig. 3 and 4 provide any real useful information. They should be in supplementary.

Fig. 6: Toxin data should be provided.

see above

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1： Response to Reviewer X Comments   1. Summary       On behalf of the authors, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your diligent work during the review process of this manuscript. We highly appreciate the thorough evaluation and valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. We have carefully considered all the comments and have made revisions accordingly. 2. Questions for General Evaluation Reviewer’s Evaluation Response and Revisions Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Yes [Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below] Are all the cited references relevant to the research? Yes   Is the research design appropriate? Yes   Are the methods adequately described? Yes   Are the results clearly presented? Yes   Are the conclusions supported by the results? Yes   3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments 1:The manuscript presented some new information on identification and characterization of F. graminearum pectin lyase genes. My major concern is that there are no complementation experiments for the deletion mutants. It is needed to conduct complementation to confirm the function of three pectin lyase genes for publication. Response 1:Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In a recent study, we performed a double knockout of two of these genes, and the results indicate that their pathogenicity is even more pronounced. A triple knockout experiment will be conducted next. Consequently, we did not perform complementation experiments for the three genes. Comments 2: Please clarify you are working on wheat blight not wheat blast. These diseases are caused by different fungal pathogens. Line 46 and others Response 2:  Thank you for pointing out the error in our terminology. We have corrected the text to accurately reflect that the disease under discussion is Fusarium head blight (FHB), not wheat blast. We have made the necessary revisions in the manuscript to ensure clarity and accuracy. We appreciate your careful review and valuable feedback. Comments 3: Line 45-49, why are you focus on Aspergillus instead of Fusarium? There are multiple reports on Fusarium fungicide resistant strains in the literatures. Response 3:Thank you for your question. I initially overlooked this issue, but I have now addressed and corrected it in the revised version of the article. Comments 4:Fig.1A, I am surprised there are no signal peptides are labeled? All theses proteins are secreted proteins? Response4: Thank you for your observation regarding Fig. 1A. In our study, FgPel1 and FgPel3 are secreted proteins. The gene sequences containing signal peptides have been listed in Table 1.   Comments 5:.Table 1 Number of amino acids from mature protein or including signal peptides? Response5:Thank you for your question regarding Table 1. The number of amino acids listed in Table 1 refers to the mature proteins, excluding the signal peptides. The gene sequences containing signal peptides have been re-added to Table 1. Comments 6:Line 45: 20 mL of pectin medium, please clarify what you used. Liquid media or agar plate. From Fig.4A, it appears you used agar plate. What else in the medium? Need some details. Response6: Thank you for your question. We used agar plates with different concentrations ofpectin. I have revised and added the relevant information.   Comments 7:Fig. 4A should include a control without pectin.   Response7:We prepared pectin agar medium by adding different concentrations of pectin to PSA. Figure 4 shows the related experimental results, including PSA plates without added pectin. Comments 8:I do not think Fig. 3 and 4 provide any real useful information. They should be in supplementary. Response8:Figure 3 has been included in the supplementary information of the article. Figure 4, which pertains to the utilization of different concentrations of pectin by mutant strains and their growth characteristics at different pH values, has not been included in the supplementary information. Comments 9:Fig. 6: Toxin data should be provided. Response9: This study measured the DON content in infected kernels after inoculating wheat spikes. Due to the low toxin levels, the data were not included in the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am agree with the changes of this new version of the manuscript. In this sense I accept the manuscript for its publication.

 

No comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attentive concern and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised and improved the article. Your opinions are crucial to us. Thank you again for your support and assistance!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors resolved some of my concerns but did not do the complementation experiments to confirm the gene functions.

The authors resolved some my concerns but did not do the complementation experiments to confirm the gene functions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version added double mutants, still did not do complementation.

Without gene complementation, I do not think it is a complete story.

 

The revised version added double mutants, still did not do complementation.

Without gene complementation, I do not think it is a complete story.

 

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf