A 1Ns Disomic Addition from Psathyrostachys Huashanica Keng Confers Resistance to Powdery Mildew in Wheat
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing me the opportunity for reviewing this paper. I really like the work. This research work will have a significant contribution to managing powdery mildew disease in wheat.
However, I have a few minor comments and they are listed below:
Please change the font size of the topic in table 1, table 2 and table 3. Please separate the tables with the required space. Table 3 and Figure 1 are close enough. Please separate them apart so that they stand out. Minor grammatical and spelling corrections are required. Please go through the paper once.Good Luck!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The 1Ns disomic addition from Psathyrostachys huashanica Keng confers resistance to powdery mildew”. These comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and made appropriate corrections, which we hope meet with your approval. The revised sections are marked (red font) in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.
Point 1: please change the font size of the topic in table 1, table 2 and table 3.
Response 1: Many thanks for your kind suggestion. We have changed the font size of the topic to number nine according to Agronomy Microsoft Word template.
Point 2: Please separate the tables with the required space.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. I have separated the table 1 from table 2 and other tables in the manuscript.
Point 3: Table 3 and Figure 1 are close enough. Please separate them apart so that they stand out.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I have widened the space between Table 3 and Figure 1.
Point 4: Minor grammatical and spelling corrections are required. Please go through the paper once.
Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing this out. I went through the manuscript carefully again.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. We hope this improved manuscript will be acceptable to you and the MDPI-Agronomy. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your considerations and for giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Han; Jun Wu, Ph.D. Professor
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100 Shaanxi, China
Email : [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (J.W.), Jan. 17, 2020
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The research basically consists of tests of powdery mildew response of 35 wheat-P. huashanica derivatives. It identifies one line with outstanding immunity and goes on to show that the line is a disomic addition line carrying a pair of P. huashanica 1Ns chromosomes.
Many statements in the paper are misleading and some essential detail is lacking. Much other material is not necessary.
huashanica is apparently a rare species limited to the Qinling Mountains. What is not clear in this paper and others from the same lab is the number of different accessions that have been collected and how many of those accessions have been used to produce hybrids that have to be embryo rescued. The selection histories as outlined in Table 3 (and in previous papers) are unclear as to as to what they mean. Presumably H means ‘Hybrid’ but are the first numbers cross numbers or plant numbers? That is, different hybrids, different F1 plants or different plant numbers. The table describes the powdery mildew responses as I, HR, MR, MS, and HS. One line listed as HS (presumably H5-5-4-2) is listed as I. The paper then focuses on that line. The table must be explained. For example, how can some lines be more susceptible than the MS parent? What is the explanation for the MR lines? Are these responses indications of more resistance genes? How did those MR lines respond as adult plants? Fig. 1 barely adds marginal value to the table. The presentation of the table has little logic – it would look much better if presented by ascending huashanica as ‘a rising star’ is meaningless – it is likely no better or no worse than many other species. To describe resistance genes as ‘eminent’, ‘excellent’, ‘brilliant’ is equally meaningless as any broadly effective resistance gene(s) whether from wheat or a related species could be equally described this way, but most if not all are equally prone to failure after exploitation in wheat cultivars.
This reviewer could detail many more negative points regarding this paper. A shorter paper with scientifically correct detail might be acceptable for publication. The data in Table 3 must be presented more logically and fully explained. Otherwise, start with addition line H5-5-4-2 and focus on it alone.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The 1Ns disomic addition from Psathyrostachys huashanica Keng confers resistance to powdery mildew”. These comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and made appropriate corrections, which we hope meet with your approval. The revised sections are marked (red font) in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.
Point 1: huashanica is apparently a rare species limited to the Qinling Mountains. What is not clear in this paper and others from the same lab is the number of different accessions that have been collected and how many of those accessions have been used to produce hybrids that have to be embryo rescued.
Response 1: Many thanks for your kind suggestion. P. huashanica we collected is one accession, and two different individual plants have been used to produce hybrids. We think that these had few relevance with our study, so they were not mentioned in the manuscript.
Point 2: The selection histories as outlined in Table 3 (and in previous papers) are unclear as to as to what they mean. Presumably H means ‘Hybrid’ but are the first numbers cross numbers or plant numbers? That is, different hybrids, different F1 plants or different plant numbers.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. “ H ” is a symbol specially used to mark the hybrid offspring of P. huashanica and wheat, which could distinguish other wheat hybrid offspring. The “ H ” derived from the initial of huashanica. The first number represents different lines.
Point 3: The table describes the powdery mildew responses as I, HR, MR, MS, and HS. One line listed as HS (presumably H5-5-4-2) is listed as I. The paper then focuses on that line.
Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing this out. The “ HS ” listed as I is our usual abbreviation of P. huashanica. We neglected another “ HS ” expressed “ highly susceptible ”. We have changed it to “ P. huashanica ” (marked with rad) on the Table 3.
Point 4: The table must be explained. For example, how can some lines be more susceptible than the MS parent? What is the explanation for the MR lines? Are these responses indications of more resistance genes? How did those MR lines respond as adult plants?
Response 4: Many thanks for reviewers' comments. Regarding the first three questions,we added the discussion concerning table 3 on line 274 to 277 in manuscript. These questions were answered below.
Line 275 to 278, “Further speculation of the resistance derived from P. huashanica was led as the progeny lines displayed different evaluation of immunity, high resistance, moderate resistance, moderate susceptibility and highly susceptible – this resistance to powdery mildew may be a quantitative trait controlled by multiple genes.”
For the last question, This manuscript focuses on the wheat–P. huashanica derivative line H5-5-4-2 which immune to powdery mildew and pay little attention to other lines. So we modified this in the manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.
Line 98 to 99, “The responses of the adult plants to powdery mildew were determined for the tested plants, wheat 7182, P. huashanica and susceptible cultivar Mingxian169 ...”
Line 162, “The materials were assessed in the adult stage...”
Line 163, “Line H5-5-4-2 and P. huashanica exhibited...”
Line 270 to 273, “we examined the responses of 35 wheat–P. huashanica derivative lines to powdery mildew in the seedling stage and showed that line H5-5-4-2 exhibits immune characteristics (Table 3). Moreover, the resistance evaluation of H5-5-4-2 in the adult stage was immunity (Fig. 1b).”
Point 5: Fig. 1 barely adds marginal value to the table.
Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer's kind advice. We evaluated the resistance to powdery mildew of plants in the seedling stage, and immune line H5-5-4-2 was selected for further study. Fig.1 shows the comparison of the leaves of P. huashanica, H5-5-4-2, wheat 7182 and Mingxian 169 after inoculation. It can visually demonstrate the resistance of H5-5-4-2 to powdery mildew. Fig. 1 (a) supports the resistance evaluation of line H5-5-4-2 in Table 3 from different aspects.
Point 6: The presentation of the table has little logic–it would look much better if presented by ascending huashanica as ‘a rising star’ is meaningless–it is likely no better or no worse than many other species.
Response 6: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we have modified it on line 247 marked with red font.
Point 7: To describe resistance genes as ‘eminent’, ‘excellent’, ‘brilliant’ is equally meaningless as any broadly effective resistance gene(s) whether from wheat or a related species could be equally described this way, but most if not all are equally prone to failure after exploitation in wheat cultivars.
Response 7: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. We have introduced the powdery mildew resistance gene of P. huashanica into wheat 7182 through distant hybridization. The wheat-P. huashanica derivative line H5-5-4-2 is immune to powdery mildew and has a good overall performance. It is a valuable intermediate material that can be used to breed resistant wheat cultivars. And we think the further study of this resistance gene is meaningful.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. We hope this improved manuscript will be acceptable to you and the MDPI-Agronomy. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your considerations and for giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Han; Jun Wu, Ph.D. Professor
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100 Shaanxi, China
Email : [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (J.W.), Jan. 17, 2020
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors described identification of powdery mildew resistant line H5-5-4-2 from screening 35 wheat- Psathyrostachys huashanica derivative lines. Through cytogenetic and EST-STS marker analysis, they found this H5-5-4-2 was a wheat–P. huashanica 1Ns disomic addition line. Therefore the resistance is from P. huashanica 1Ns. Overall, this is a well-written manuscript. Following are some comments to authors for revision of this manuscript:
Line 58 “PHw-SA”, Line 61 “PHW-SA”, please be consistent.
Line 143, “…groups were used for identifying P. huashanica chromosomes in H5-5-4-2.”, it is better to be “…in line H5-5-4-2”.
Line 146, “…H2Owas…”, should be “… H2O was…”.
Line 219, “…could amplify clear marker-specific bands in disomic addition line H5-5-4-2 and P. huashanica but none in the wheat parent 7182”. Should be “…clear P. huashanica-specific bands….”.
Line 266, “…in current study”, should be “…in recent studies”.
Line 272, “…7182 was highly susceptible”, should be “…7182 was moderately susceptible”. Otherwise, it was contradictory to the earlier description.
Figure 1 (a), quality is low, not focused well.
Figure 4, there is no arrows.
Table 4, “Chromosome numbers and pairing in H5-5-4-2 during the meiotic and meiotic stages.”, should be “….mitotic and meiotic stages”.
Table 5, formatting.
Some authors analysed two 1Ns addition line, H9021-28-5 and 12-3, previously [52, 53]. If they include these two lines in the current study on powdery mildew resistance, it will have thorough evidence on 1Ns conferring the resistance.
In EST-STS analysis, they used total 83 pairs of primers; identified 3 pairs (chromosome group 1) amplified specific bands in line H5-5-4-2. It is better to mention how the other markers performed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The 1Ns disomic addition from Psathyrostachys huashanica Keng confers resistance to powdery mildew”. These comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and made appropriate corrections, which we hope meet with your approval. The revised sections are marked (red font) in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.
Point 1: Line 58 “PHw-SA”, Line 61 “PHW-SA”, please be consistent..
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected “PHW-SA” as “PHw-SA” marked with red on line 62.
Point 2: Line 143, “…groups were used for identifying P. huashanica chromosomes in H5-5-4-2.”, it is better to be “…in line H5-5-4-2”.
Response 2: Many thanks for the reviewer's kind suggestion. We have revised it on line 144 in the manuscript.
Point 3: Line 146, “…H2Owas…”, should be “… H2O was…”.
Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind advice. We have modified it marked with red on line 147.
Point 4: Line 219, “…could amplify clear marker-specific bands in disomic addition line H5-5-4-2 and P. huashanica but none in the wheat parent 7182”. Should be “…clear P. huashanica-specific bands….”.
Response 4: Many thanks for reviewers' comments. We have revised it as “could amplify clear P. huashanica-specific bands in disomic addition line H5-5-4-2 but none in the wheat parent 7182” on line 218.
Point 5: Line 266, “…in current study”, should be “…in recent studies”.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected it marked with red on line 267 in the manuscript.
Point 6: Line 272, “…7182 was highly susceptible”, should be “…7182 was moderately susceptible”. Otherwise, it was contradictory to the earlier description.
Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We have changed “highly susceptible” to “moderately susceptible” on line 274.
Point 7: Figure 1 (a), quality is low, not focused well.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your advice. We changed a clear Figure 1 in the manuscript.
|
1 2 3 4 |
1 2 3 4 |
|
(a) |
(b) |
Point 8: Figure 4, there is no arrows.
Response 8: Many thanks for the reviewer's kind suggestion. We have added the arrow again in Figure 4.
|
|
M 1 2 3 |
M 1 2 3 |
M 1 2 3 |
|
2000bp 1000bp 750bp 500bp 250bp |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) BE497584 |
(b) BF202643 |
(c) BG262410 |
Point 9: Table 4, “Chromosome numbers and pairing in H5-5-4-2 during the meiotic and meiotic stages.”, should be “….mitotic and meiotic stages”.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the topic of Table 4 marked with red on line 190 in the paper.
Point 10: Table 5, formatting.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the format of Table 5 in the paper according to Agronomy Microsoft Word template.
Point 11: Some authors analysed two 1Ns addition line, H9021-28-5 and 12-3, previously [52, 53]. If they include these two lines in the current study on powdery mildew resistance, it will have thorough evidence on 1Ns conferring the resistance.
Response 11: I am very grateful to your advice. These authors did not analyse the powdery mildew resistance of 1Ns. This is the first paper to evaluate the resistances to powdery mildew of the progenies crossed by wheat 7182 and P. huashanica.
Point 12: In EST-STS analysis, they used total 83 pairs of primers; identified 3 pairs (chromosome group 1) amplified specific bands in line H5-5-4-2. It is better to mention how the other markers performed.
Response 12: Thanks for the your kind suggestions. For your suggestions, We added "While, the amplification products of other primers did not display specific bands." on line 221 of the manuscript.
Please see the attachment for the pictures.
Special thanks to you for your good comments again.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. We hope this improved manuscript will be acceptable to you and the MDPI-Agronomy. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your considerations and for giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Han; Jun Wu, Ph.D. Professor
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100 Shaanxi, China
Email : [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (J.W.), Jan. 17, 2020
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a revised version of a paper for which I recommended rejection in an earlier review.
My present recommendation is also Rejection.
In essence the paper reports powdery mildew resistance in a wheat line with an added pair of 1Ns chromosomes from P. huashanica an apparently rare grass species from the Qingling Mountains in China. There are already a number of papers published on derivatives of this species in what seems to be a one trait : one paper pattern.
The paper reports powdery mildew tests of 35 wheat-P. huashanica derivatives – one line showing an immune response was subjected to cytogenetic analysis and shown to be a 2n=44 disomic addition line forming 22 bivalents in meiosis. The added chromosome pair was shown to be 1Ns using genome-specific markers. There is nothing new about the science – a few largely unnecessary tables, some low to medium quality pictures and 53 references do not constitute a publishable manuscript.
My major concern with the paper is its unnecessary length, over-referencing and vague mis-leading language.
The origin of the 35 lines is not clear (last par Int & first par M&M). So far as I can tell the lines were not developed specifically for this paper – who developed the lines? (reference?) How many sources of the grass parent? How many different crosses? Two tables in M7M are not required - the information to interpret the results is given in the text with two references. Disease index is referred to only in regard to the reference lines (lines 164-1680 The data in Table 3 appears to be somewhat descriptive rather than based on DI. There is no logic to the table – the lines are not arranged based in H sequence nor in response groups, the possible ways that a critical reader might peruse a dataset. Table 4 is not necessary because it adds little to the text. Fig. 2 &3 might be accelted but are of poor quality. The Discussion is far too long and not always clear or accurate. I guess ‘wild’ hybridization was meant to be ‘wide’. The paper refers to the 1B-1R translocation as ‘typical’ – it is not typical, it is exceptional and there are relatively few examples of successful exploitation of alien traits important as they are. The language is overdone; words like ‘excellent’, ‘eminent, and ‘brilliant’ should not be used because in the present context they are ambiguous.A scan of the manuscript is attached. I might illustrate the problems that this reviewer encountered while reading the paper. A much shorter paper not exceeding 2 pages with far fewer references and simple a statement of what was done and found might be acceptable in an appropriate journal such as Wheat Information Service or Cereal Research Communications.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. These comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and made appropriate corrections, which we hope meet with your approval. The revised sections are marked using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.
Point 1:The origin of the 35 lines is not clear (last par Int & first par M&M). So far as I can tell the lines were not developed specifically for this paper – who developed the lines? (reference?)
Response 1: Many thanks for your kind suggestion. The 35 lines were successfully crossed by our laboratory and were selected after years of separation. These lines were the first to be tested for powdery mildew resistance after stabilization in our study, so there are no references.
Point 2: How many sources of the grass parent?
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. Psathyrostachys huashanica Keng is a species of Psathyrostachys. We collected two P. huashanica individuals in Huashan, but their appearance has few difference. We chose one of them to cross, however we didn't register it.
Point 3: How many different crosses?
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments. A distant hybridization of 7182 and P. huashanica was carried out in our laboratory, and a successful hybrid plant was obtained. After years of planting, separation, and selection, most of the current lines are in the F9 generation.
Point 4: Two tables in M7M are not required - the information to interpret the results is given in the text with two references.
Response 4: Many thanks for reviewers' comments. Based on our understanding of your comments, you suggested that Table 1 and Table 2 confused readers because of different grading standards. The two tables are the evaluation of resistance to powdery mildew of plants in different stages, and they are different index. In addition, we deleted a reference entitled “Confirmation of three quantitative trait loci conferring adult plant resistance to powdery mildew in two winter wheat populations” on Line 113 to 114.
Since we didn't recognize your comments in the pdf document, if we have any deviation in understanding, please point out and we will revise it again, thank you very much.
Point 5: Disease index is referred to only in regard to the reference lines (lines 164-1680 The data in Table 3 appears to be somewhat descriptive rather than based on DI.
Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer's kind advice. Disease index is only used at the adult stage in our study, so it is referred to only in assessing the adult resistance. The data in Table 3 is the seedling resistance evaluated by an infection type (IT) scale from 0–4 instead of Disease index.
Point 6: There is no logic to the table – the lines are not arranged based in H sequence nor in response groups, the possible ways that a critical reader might peruse a dataset.
Response 6: Thank you very much for pointing this out. According with your advice, we have modified Table 3 based in H sequence on manuscript.
|
Line |
Reaction |
Line |
Reaction |
|
H1-8-1-1-2 |
MR |
H17-7-1-1-1 |
MS |
|
H1-11-5-1-1 |
MS |
H17-7-1-1-8-2 |
MS |
|
H2-4-18-7-1 |
MS |
H18-1-3-1-6-4 |
HR |
|
H2-4-18-7-10 |
MS |
H19-1-1 |
MS |
|
H2-7-8-7-7-2 |
HS |
H19-1-1-1 |
MS |
|
H3-1-1-1 |
MS |
H20-1-1 |
HS |
|
H3-2-1-3-5 |
HS |
H20-5-1-1-3-2 |
MR |
|
H3-2-1-3-12 |
MS |
H24-3-1-5-19-1 |
MS |
|
H3-2-2-1-1 |
MS |
H24-4-4-1-1-3 |
MR |
|
H3-2-3-5-1 |
MS |
H26-1-1-1 |
HS |
|
H3-3-6-3-7 |
MS |
H30-2-3-1-1 |
HS |
|
H3-5-6-3-1-9 |
MR |
H30-4-4-1-6-4 |
MS |
|
H3-7-4-2-1 |
HS |
H34-8-2-6-1 |
MR |
|
H3-7-4-2-2 |
MR |
H42-3-1 |
HS |
|
H5-5-4-2 |
I |
H62-1-1-1 |
MR |
|
H5-9-1 |
HS |
H210-1-1 |
MS |
|
H8-12-2 |
MS |
P. huashanica |
I |
|
H9-46-1 |
MS |
7182 |
MS |
|
H13-4-1 |
HS |
Mingxian169 |
HS |
Point 7: Table 4 is not necessary because it adds little to the text.
Response 7: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. We have deleted Table 4 and modified the relevant content on Line 189 to 195 in the manuscript.
Point 8: Fig. 2 &3 might be accelted but are of poor quality.
Response 8: Many thanks for the reviewer's kind suggestion. The pictures used in the manuscript are original images, their poor quality may be caused by the compression. We have changed other pictures to improve quality.
Point 9: The Discussion is far too long and not always clear or accurate. I guess ‘wild’ hybridization was meant to be ‘wide’. The paper refers to the 1B-1R translocation as ‘typical’ – it is not typical, it is exceptional and there are relatively few examples of successful exploitation of alien traits important as they are. The language is overdone; words like ‘excellent’, ‘eminent, and ‘brilliant’ should not be used because in the present context they are ambiguous.
Response 9: Thanks for the your kind suggestions. We have modified and simplified the discussion according to your attached pdf document. And we have changed “typical” to “outstanding”, and removed exaggerated words.
Point 10: A scan of the manuscript is attached. I might illustrate the problems that this reviewer encountered while reading the paper.
Response 10: Many thanks for your comments. We studied your attached pdf document carefully. We have revised the manuscript using the "Track Changes" function after identification and discussion. If we have any deviation in understanding, please point out and we will revise it again, thank you one more time.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. We hope this improved manuscript will be acceptable to you and the MDPI-Agronomy. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your considerations and for giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Han; Jun Wu, Ph.D. Professor
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100 Shaanxi, China
Email : [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (J.W.), Jan. 17, 2020
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
