Stress Responses and Mechanisms of Phytopathogens Infecting Humans: Threats, Drivers, and Recommendations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review article examines the phenomenon of cross-kingdom infections of humans and animals by plant pathogens (phytopathogens), exploring the underlying drivers, molecular mechanisms, and potential threats to human health. It emphasizes the importance of adopting the "One Health" framework to address these emerging cross-kingdom infections through interdisciplinary research and international collaboration, and it proposes specific recommendations such as enhancing biosecurity and applying artificial intelligence. The article also discusses in detail the mechanisms by which phytopathogens breach host barriers, including immune evasion, nutritional adaptation, and thermal adaptation. The manuscript was major revised before publication in Stresses. I ask the authors to consider the following comments:

(1) The innovation of the article lies in its systematic summary of the molecular mechanisms and driving factors of cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens, particularly offering new insights into immune evasion and nutritional adaptation. Additionally, the emphasis on the "One Health" framework to tackle cross-kingdom infections is forward-looking and highly relevant. The significance of the article lies in alerting the scientific community and public health sectors to the potential threats of phytopathogens to human health and proposing concrete strategies for response. However, the article lacks in-depth experimental data to support some of its claims, with certain viewpoints remaining at the hypothetical stage and requiring further experimental validation.

(2) The article systematically summarizes the current status, mechanisms, and response strategies for cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens. Its main contribution is highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary research and international cooperation, and emphasizing the key role of the "One Health" framework in addressing cross-kingdom infections.

(3) The article is significant in alerting the scientific community to the potential threats of phytopathogens to human health and proposing concrete strategies for response. However, it lacks in-depth experimental research on the infection mechanisms of specific pathogens. It is recommended that the authors supplement the article with data or references on key pathogens to enhance its persuasiveness.

(4) The structure of the article is clear and logical, progressing coherently from background introduction to specific mechanisms and then to response strategies. However, some sections are somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to highlight key points more effectively.

(5) The article primarily employs a literature review approach to summarize current research progress. However, discussions of key mechanisms lack experimental data support. It is recommended that the authors supplement these sections with data or references to enhance the scientific rigor of the article.

(6) The language is fluent, and professional terminology is used accurately. However, some sentences are overly complex and could be simplified to improve readability.

(7) Abstract and Introduction: The research motivation is reasonable, emphasizing the potential threats of cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens. The innovation points are clear but somewhat general. It is recommended that the authors further refine these points to highlight specific mechanisms.

(8) The article adequately summarizes the characteristics and shortcomings of related research. However, some cited references are outdated. It is recommended that the authors include more recent research to enhance the timeliness of the article.

(9) Figures and Tables: The figures and tables are clear and informative, but some annotations are too brief. It is recommended that the authors add more explanatory text. Figure 2 ???

(10) The reference format is standardized, but some references are outdated. It is recommended that the authors include more recent research.

(11) Specialized terms are used accurately, and formula formats are standardized. No obvious errors were found.

(12) The Key Factors for Phytopathogens to Infect Humans

The key factors for phytopathogens to infect humans include:

Immune Evasion Capability: Phytopathogens can secrete effector proteins to suppress the host immune response.

Nutritional Adaptability: Phytopathogens can utilize host nutrients, such as iron ions, to support their growth and reproduction.

Thermal Adaptability: Some phytopathogens can adapt to the human body temperature (37°C), allowing them to survive and reproduce within the human body.

Deficiencies in the Host Immune System: Individuals with compromised immune systems are more susceptible to infections by phytopathogens.

(13) Emergency Measures During Phytopathogen Infections

Enhancing Biosecurity Measures: Strictly control the spread of phytopathogens, especially in agricultural production and food processing.

Raising Public Health Awareness: Increase public awareness of the risks of phytopathogen infections through education and outreach.

Strengthening Surveillance and Early Warning: Establish monitoring networks for phytopathogen infections to detect and alert potential outbreaks promptly.

Emergency Medical Preparedness: Stockpile specific drugs and treatment protocols for phytopathogen infections to ensure rapid response during an outbreak.

(14) Treatment After Phytopathogen Infections

Antibiotic Therapy: Use broad-spectrum or specific antibiotics to treat bacterial phytopathogen infections.

Antifungal Therapy: Use antifungal drugs such as amphotericin B or fluconazole for fungal phytopathogen infections.

Immune Modulation Therapy: Enhance the host immune system to combat infections, such as through the use of immunoglobulins or cytokines.

Supportive Care: Provided respiratory and nutritional support for severely ill patients to maintain vital signs.

Surgical Intervention: Surgically remove infected tissues or foci when necessary.

Please summarize it in the main text with a schematic diagram according to the above content (13 and 14).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no problem

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer Comments

We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. We have incorporated your suggested corrections inserted in the manuscript, which are marked in red inked fonts in the manuscript. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication. Please find our specific responses below to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 1 comments:

Comment-1. The innovation of the article lies in its systematic summary of the molecular mechanisms and driving factors of cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens, particularly offering new insights into immune evasion and nutritional adaptation. Additionally, the emphasis on the "One Health" framework to tackle cross-kingdom infections is forward-looking and highly relevant. The significance of the article lies in alerting the scientific community and public health sectors to the potential threats of phytopathogens to human health and proposing concrete strategies for response. However, the article lacks in-depth experimental data to support some of its claims, with certain viewpoints remaining at the hypothetical stage and requiring further experimental validation.

 

Response-1: Thank you for your suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have added experimental data throughout the manuscript.

Comments-2: The article systematically summarizes the current status, mechanisms, and response strategies for cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens. Its main contribution is highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary research and international cooperation, and emphasizing the key role of the "One Health" framework in addressing cross-kingdom infections.

Response-2:

We are thankful for your insightful review and positive feedback. 

Comment-3. The article is significant in alerting the scientific community to the potential threats of phytopathogens to human health and proposing concrete strategies for response. However, it lacks in-depth experimental research on the infection mechanisms of specific pathogens. It is recommended that the authors supplement the article with data or references on key pathogens to enhance its persuasiveness.

Response-3: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have supplemented the discussion with experimental data regarding infection mechanisms of specific pathogens.

Comment-4. The structure of the article is clear and logical, progressing coherently from background introduction to specific mechanisms and then to response strategies. However, some sections are somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to highlight key points more effectively.

Response-4: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have condensed the discussion to highlight key points during extensive revision.

Comment-5. The article primarily employs a literature review approach to summarize current research progress. However, discussions of key mechanisms lack experimental data support. It is recommended that the authors supplement these sections with data or references to enhance the scientific rigor of the article.

Response-5: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have supported the discussion of key mechanisms with experimental data.

Comment-6. The language is fluent, and professional terminology is used accurately. However, some sentences are overly complex and could be simplified to improve readability.

Response-6: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have extensively revised the manuscript and improved its readability.

Comment-7. Abstract and Introduction: The research motivation is reasonable, emphasizing the potential threats of cross-kingdom infections by phytopathogens. The innovation points are clear but somewhat general. It is recommended that the authors further refine these points to highlight specific mechanisms.

Response-7: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have revised the abstract and introduction.

Comment-8. The article adequately summarizes the characteristics and shortcomings of related research. However, some cited references are outdated. It is recommended that the authors include more recent research to enhance the timeliness of the article.

Response-8: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have included more recent research. However, some old references are very original and cannot be replaced.

Comment-9. Figures and Tables: The figures and tables are clear and informative, but some annotations are too brief. It is recommended that the authors add more explanatory text. Figure 2 ???.

Response-9: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have improved and added more explanatory text in the captions of all figures, including Figure 2.

Comment-10. The reference format is standardized, but some references are outdated. It is recommended that the authors include more recent research.

Response-10: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have included more recent research. However, some old references are very original and cannot be wise to replace.

Comment-11. Specialized terms are used accurately, and formula formats are standardized. No obvious errors were found.

Response-11: Thank you for positive feedback.

Comment-12. (12) The Key Factors for Phytopathogens to Infect Humans

The key factors for phytopathogens to infect humans include:

Immune Evasion Capability: Phytopathogens can secrete effector proteins to suppress the host immune response.

Nutritional Adaptability: Phytopathogens can utilize host nutrients, such as iron ions, to support their growth and reproduction.

Thermal Adaptability: Some phytopathogens can adapt to the human body temperature (37°C), allowing them to survive and reproduce within the human body.

Deficiencies in the Host Immune System: Individuals with compromised immune systems are more susceptible to infections by phytopathogens.

Response-12: Thank you for your understanding and positive feedback.

Comment-13. (13) Emergency Measures During Phytopathogen Infections

Enhancing Biosecurity Measures: Strictly control the spread of phytopathogens, especially in agricultural production and food processing.

Raising Public Health Awareness: Increase public awareness of the risks of phytopathogen infections through education and outreach.

Strengthening Surveillance and Early Warning: Establish monitoring networks for phytopathogen infections to detect and alert potential outbreaks promptly.

Emergency Medical Preparedness: Stockpile specific drugs and treatment protocols for phytopathogen infections to ensure rapid response during an outbreak.

Response: Please see response 14.

Comment-14. (14) Treatment After Phytopathogen Infections

Antibiotic Therapy: Use broad-spectrum or specific antibiotics to treat bacterial phytopathogen infections.

Antifungal Therapy: Use antifungal drugs such as amphotericin B or fluconazole for fungal phytopathogen infections.

Immune Modulation Therapy: Enhance the host immune system to combat infections, such as through the use of immunoglobulins or cytokines.

Supportive Care: Provided respiratory and nutritional support for severely ill patients to maintain vital signs.

Surgical Intervention: Surgically remove infected tissues or foci when necessary.

Please summarize it in the main text with a schematic diagram according to the above content (13 and 14).

Response- 13 and 14: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have included the following section in the main text with schematic diagrams (Figure 9 and 10).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Your manuscript addresses a timely and significant topic, exploring the ability of phytopathogens to infect human and animal hosts. The breadth of the manuscript and its One Health perspective are commendable. However, to enhance its clarity, scientific rigor, and alignment with the journal’s scope, we recommend the following improvements:

 

1. Sharpen the focus on stress-response mechanisms throughout the text. Some sections, especially those on policy and epidemiology, could be streamlined to avoid diverting from the core theme.
2. Expand details on molecular stress-response pathways (e.g., MAPK signaling, oxidative stress tolerance, heat shock proteins). Include concrete examples of genetic adaptations enabling cross-kingdom infection.
3. Improve clarity by:

• Adding or refining a schematic diagram showing the full infection pathway.
• Using clear labels and legends for all figures.
• Distinguishing infection stages (entry, immune evasion, adaptation) with visual segmentation (e.g., colored backgrounds or labeled sections).

4. Emphasize stress physiology and adaptation mechanisms over general public health content. Reframe discussions on environmental and anthropogenic drivers to highlight how they induce pathogen stress responses.
5. Writing and Readability

• Streamline repetitive sections for conciseness.
• Split long sentences and paragraphs for improved readability.
• Maintain consistent terminology (e.g., consistently use "cross-kingdom phytopathogens").

 

Best regards,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer Comments

We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. We have incorporated your suggested corrections inserted in the manuscript, which are marked in red inked fonts in the manuscript. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication. Please find our specific responses below to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 2 comments:

Comment-1. Sharpen the focus on stress-response mechanisms throughout the text. Some sections, especially those on policy and epidemiology, could be streamlined to avoid diverting from the core theme.

 Response-1: Thank you for your suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have extensively revised the manuscript.

 Comments-2: Expand details on molecular stress-response pathways (e.g., MAPK signaling, oxidative stress tolerance, heat shock proteins). Include concrete examples of genetic adaptations enabling cross-kingdom infection.

 Response-2:

We are thankful for your insightful review and positive feedback. We have added details on molecular stress-response pathways (e.g., MAPK signaling, oxidative stress tolerance, heat shock proteins) (P5-17, L 187-747). We also have included examples of genetic adaptations enabling cross-kingdom infection on Page 9 (section 3.6).

Comment-3. Improve clarity by:

Adding or refining a schematic diagram showing the full infection pathway.

Using clear labels and legends for all figures.

Distinguishing infection stages (entry, immune evasion, adaptation) with visual segmentation (e.g., colored backgrounds or labeled sections).

Response-3: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have added a schematic diagram (Figure 2).  We have improved the labeling and legends of all figures. In the Figure 2, we have shown distinct stages of infection.

Comment-4. Emphasize stress physiology and adaptation mechanisms over general public health content. Reframe discussions on environmental and anthropogenic drivers to highlight how they induce pathogen stress responses.

Response-4: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have revised the discussion (P9-10,).

Comment-5. Writing and Readability

Streamline repetitive sections for conciseness.

Split long sentences and paragraphs for improved readability.

Maintain consistent terminology (e.g., consistently use "cross-kingdom phytopathogens").

 Response-5: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. The manuscript has been extensively revised to incorporate the suggestion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cross-kingdom infections, where phytopathogens infect animals and humans, were historically considered rare and of minimal concern. The infections pose a significant and growing challenge at the intersection of plant, animal, and human health. This review is very meaningful for humans and society.