Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 Induces Plant Defense and Suppresses the Transmission of Tomato Chlorosis Virus by Bemisia tabaci MED
, Limin Zheng 2, Yang Gao 2, Jing Peng 2, Xiaobin Shi 1,2, Yong Liu 2 and Deyong Zhang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The english language of this manuscript must be improved;
2.What is the meaning of absolute quatification of virus content in line 95, as I know normal qRT-PCR do not have this capability?
3.Result 3.4.1, AAP of T. tabaci on PSB-06 treated and untreated tomato were not shown; and the content of ToCV in tomato plants can not suport result 3.4.1, instead, the content of ToCV in T. tabaci should be measured here. Line 258-line 261 can not support the result of 3.4.2..
4.The figure legends especially figure 5 should be rewritten.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript agronomy-1954153 entitled “Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci” has been revised according to the editorial suggestions. Reviewers’ constructive criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have essentially followed most of the changes suggested by the reviewers, and the remaining comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). The following is a point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer 1:
1.The english language of this manuscript must be improved;
RESPONSE: Done.
2.What is the meaning of absolute quatification of virus content in line 95, as I know normal qRT-PCR do not have this capability?
RESPONSE: Done (lines 97-109). ToCV content was calculated by obtaining ToCV standard curve with RT-qPCR method.
3.Result 3.4.1, AAP of B. tabaci on PSB-06 treated and untreated tomato were not shown; and the content of ToCV in tomato plants can not suport result 3.4.1, instead, the content of ToCV in B. tabaci should be measured here. Line 258-line 261 can not support the result of 3.4.2.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 268-271 & 280-289). AAP of B. tabaci is described in Materials and Methods; In 3.4.1, the content of ToCV is the acquisition of ToCV by B. tabaci at 48 AAP; In 3.4.2, the content of ToCV is the accumulation of ToCV in tomato plants exposed to ToCV-infected B. tabaci.
4.The figure legends especially figure 5 should be rewritten.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 273-278).
Again, we truly appreciate editor’s and reviewers’ enthusiasm about our work. This manuscript has improved tremendously with your constructive criticisms and thorough editing. We believe that the revised manuscript incorporates most of the suggested changes and conforms to journal guidelines.
With respect,
Dingyihui Lu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of this review is a manuscript, entitled: "Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci". The work was done reliably, the experiments were correctly designed and carried out. The results provide new knowledge in preventing the spread of infection caused by the Tomato chlorosis virus (ToCV). However, a few smaller or larger errors must be corrected in the work, which I take the liberty of presenting below.
To begin with, I recommend improving the language of this article (it contains several stylistic errors, like using semicolons in the abstract instead of commas).
Introduction paragraph:
1) lines 48-49: I recommended rewriting the sentence, like "Tomato chlorosis virus (ToCV) is Crinivirus (from family Closteroviridae) with a genome of positive-sense single-stranded RNA."
2) line 55: I recommend starting this sentence with a new paragraph.
Materials and methods:
3) line 76: First, the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene (mtCOI) is not a ToCV molecular marker gene, secondly, this gene is not mentioned in Table 1.
4) lines 85-86: The same mistake as mentioned before. The heat shock protein 70 gene (HSP70) is not a gene that should be used to detect ToCV in plants and it is not mentioned in Table 1.
5) Table 1: I recommended changing "Internal parameter" to "Housekeeping gene for..." or "Plant/ B. tabaci reference gene).
6) line 95: The first appearance of a gene hash should be developed, and then only a shortcut can be used. Please correct this throughout the article. Also, the CHLH gene is not described in Table 1.
7) line 99: Please describe the manufacturer of the TRIzol up.
8) line 103: Please provide complete descriptions of manufacturers throughout the article.
9) line 125: Question - Why did you analyse the enzyme activity just for 45 days? I suggest checking the differences through all harvested time points next time. This would allow you to understand the speed of activation of defense processes by the PSB-06.
10) line 141: The CHLM gene is not described in table 1.
11) line 157: I suggest to change: "1 cage/plant" to "1 plant/cage). Also, please expand the abbreviation IAP.
Results:
12) lines 197-198: Please provide statistics related to the conclusion in the given sentence. The calculations presented in the graph concern the comparative analysis of plants treated with PSB-06 to control plants within one phytohormone. Also, the P value given in line 196 for SA does not agree with the presented results in the graph.
13) line 210: If SOD has a P = 0.429, that means the result present for this enzyme is not statistically significant. In this case, the markings on figure 2E do not match.
14) Figure 3: The statistics presented in figures 3 C and D do not agree with the description in the text (lines 217 and 220). In addition, no increase/decrease should be determined for statistically insignificant results (line 219).
15) line 250: The same comments as before. You should not describe the results as "lower" when it is statistically insignificant.
16) Figure 5: Please add indications regarding statistical significance in the results presented in the figure.
17) lines 259-261: Once again, you present statistically insignificant results by marking a lower accumulation of ToCV in plants treated with PSB-06 ( P = 0.073). Unfortunately, in this case, it is a divagation that should be corrected.
Discussion:
I kindly ask you to remove any references to figures in this place (references of this type should only appear in the materials and methods and the results sections).
18) line 275: The results for ToCV transmission by B. tabaci have not been supported by statistics, so the conclusions need to be changed.
19) line 295: The results for SA content have not been supported by statistics, so the conclusions need to be changed.
20) line 301: Here a mental shortcut was used. "[...] activated the expression (or synthesis - depending on whether we are talking about genes or proteins) of pathogenesis...".
21) lines 322 - 331: In this paragraph, there are many repetitions of the conclusions described in the previous paragraphs. Please reorganize this fragment.
22) lines 331-332: The experiments you have presented do not take into account studies of the interaction of bacterial and viral proteins, so these are far-reaching conclusions. I recommend reorganizing this fragment, indicating more of the activation of many signalling pathways and processes related to plant defense after using PSB-06, but the mechanism of action of bacteria requires further analysis.
23) lines 333 - 343: This fragment looks like the final conclusion. I recommend combining it with the conclusions itself and creating one common paragraph, thus shortening the text a bit.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript agronomy-1954153 entitled “Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci” has been revised according to the editorial suggestions. Reviewers’ constructive criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have essentially followed most of the changes suggested by the reviewers, and the remaining comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). The following is a point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer 2:
To begin with, I recommend improving the language of this article (it contains several stylistic errors, like using semicolons in the abstract instead of commas).
RESPONSE: Done.
1) lines 48-49: I recommended rewriting the sentence, like "Tomato chlorosis virus (ToCV) is Crinivirus (from family Closteroviridae) with a genome of positive-sense single-stranded RNA."
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 48-49).
2) line 55: I recommend starting this sentence with a new paragraph.
RESPONSE: Done.
3) line 76: First, the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene (mtCOI) is not a ToCV molecular marker gene, secondly, this gene is not mentioned in Table 1.
RESPONSE: Done (Table 1 & lines 76-77).
4) lines 85-86: The same mistake as mentioned before. The heat shock protein 70 gene (HSP70) is not a gene that should be used to detect ToCV in plants and it is not mentioned in Table 1.
RESPONSE: Done (Table 1 & lines 86-88).
5) Table 1: I recommended changing "Internal parameter" to "Housekeeping gene for..." or "Plant/ B. tabaci reference gene).
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (Table 1).
6) line 95: The first appearance of a gene hash should be developed, and then only a shortcut can be used. Please correct this throughout the article. Also, the CHLH gene is not described in Table 1.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 110-112). The CHLH gene was described in Table 1.
7) line 99: Please describe the manufacturer of the TRIzol up.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 115).
8) line 103: Please provide complete descriptions of manufacturers throughout the article.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 118).
9) line 125: Question - Why did you analyse the enzyme activity just for 45 days? I suggest checking the differences through all harvested time points next time. This would allow you to understand the speed of activation of defense processes by the PSB-06.
RESPONSE: Since tomato plants treated with PSB-06 showed significant symptoms of leaf at 45 days (Figure 3A, B), we wanted to investigate the changes of the enzyme activity of tomato plants at 45 days.
10) line 141: The CHLM gene is not described in table 1.
RESPONSE: Done. The CHLM gene was described in Table 1.
11) line 157: I suggest to change: "1 cage/plant" to "1 plant/cage). Also, please expand the abbreviation IAP.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 173).
12) lines 197-198: Please provide statistics related to the conclusion in the given sentence. The calculations presented in the graph concern the comparative analysis of plants treated with PSB-06 to control plants within one phytohormone. Also, the P value given in line 196 for SA does not agree with the presented results in the graph.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 215-216 & lines 214).
13) line 210: If SOD has a P = 0.429, that means the result present for this enzyme is not statistically significant. In this case, the markings on figure 2E do not match.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 228).
14) Figure 3: The statistics presented in figures 3 C and D do not agree with the description in the text (lines 217 and 220). In addition, no increase/decrease should be determined for statistically insignificant results (line 219).
RESPONSE: Done (lines 235-237).
15) line 250: The same comments as before. You should not describe the results as "lower" when it is statistically insignificant.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 268-271).
16) Figure 5: Please add indications regarding statistical significance in the results presented in the figure.
RESPONSE: Done.
17) lines 259-261: Once again, you present statistically insignificant results by marking a lower accumulation of ToCV in plants treated with PSB-06 ( P = 0.073). Unfortunately, in this case, it is a divagation that should be corrected.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 280-289).
I kindly ask you to remove any references to figures in this place (references of this type should only appear in the materials and methods and the results sections).
RESPONSE: Done.
18) line 275: The results for ToCV transmission by B. tabaci have not been supported by statistics, so the conclusions need to be changed.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 302-303). The results for ToCV transmission by B. tabaci have been supported by results 3.4.2 (Figure 5B).
19) line 295: The results for SA content have not been supported by statistics, so the conclusions need to be changed.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 323).
20) line 301: Here a mental shortcut was used. "[...] activated the expression (or synthesis - depending on whether we are talking about genes or proteins) of pathogenesis...".
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 330).
21) lines 322 - 331: In this paragraph, there are many repetitions of the conclusions described in the previous paragraphs. Please reorganize this fragment.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 350-356).
22) lines 331-332: The experiments you have presented do not take into account studies of the interaction of bacterial and viral proteins, so these are far-reaching conclusions. I recommend reorganizing this fragment, indicating more of the activation of many signalling pathways and processes related to plant defense after using PSB-06, but the mechanism of action of bacteria requires further analysis.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 356-361).
23) lines 333 - 343: This fragment looks like the final conclusion. I recommend combining it with the conclusions itself and creating one common paragraph, thus shortening the text a bit.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 363-371).
Again, we truly appreciate editor’s and reviewers’ enthusiasm about our work. This manuscript has improved tremendously with your constructive criticisms and thorough editing. We believe that the revised manuscript incorporates most of the suggested changes and conforms to journal guidelines.
With respect,
Dingyihui Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript ‘Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci’ is a well-designed experiment describing the importance of a photosynthetic bacteria in reducing ToCV transmission by whiteflies. However, the discussion needs to be improved a lot. The article needs minor revision.
I suggest the authors discuss about how the enhanced defense response from the PSB application that reduces the ToCV infection, which can include induced basal defense and systemic resistance. The discussion is mostly an elaborate repetition of the results.
There is a lack of discussion about the acquisition of ToCV by whiteflies upon PSB application. The authors must explain how and why the acquisition of ToCV reduced if the plants were already infected with ToCV. Is it something related to PSB with whiteflies?
Did the authors test the infection for PSB-06 in the tomato plants after 30/60 days? The infection of PSB should be included.
Minor comments:
Line 15, 17. Replace ‘;’ with a comma.
Line 48. ToCV is an RNA virus which belongs to the …
Line 49. Will cause? Rewrite the sentence stating the economically important crops affected by ToCV.
Line 55. Change to: ….Insecticides (23). On the other hand, R. palustris…..
Line 57. Change to: …… (PBS-06), a member of the purple non- 57 sulfur bacteria can prevent and control ToCV in field experiments (data not shown).
Line 73. Tomato plants with a temperature of .. and …% humidity.
Line 179. Between the tomato plants treated with PSB-06 every 5 days and 3 days.
Fig1. Label the x-axis. Days of application or something else.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript agronomy-1954153 entitled “Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci” has been revised according to the editorial suggestions. Reviewers’ constructive criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have essentially followed most of the changes suggested by the reviewers, and the remaining comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). The following is a point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer 3:
I suggest the authors discuss about how the enhanced defense response from the PSB application that reduces the ToCV infection, which can include induced basal defense and systemic resistance. The discussion is mostly an elaborate repetition of the results.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 350-361).
There is a lack of discussion about the acquisition of ToCV by whiteflies upon PSB application. The authors must explain how and why the acquisition of ToCV reduced if the plants were already infected with ToCV. Is it something related to PSB with whiteflies?
RESPONSE: Done (lines 356-361).
Did the authors test the infection for PSB-06 in the tomato plants after 30/60 days? The infection of PSB should be included.
RESPONSE: Done (Result 3.4.2 & Figure 5B).
Line 15, 17. Replace ‘;’ with a comma.
RESPONSE: Done.
Line 48. ToCV is an RNA virus which belongs to the …
RESPONSE: Done (lines 48).
Line 49. Will cause? Rewrite the sentence stating the economically important crops affected by ToCV.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 49).
Line 55. Change to: ….Insecticides (23). On the other hand, R. palustris…..
RESPONSE: Done (lines 56).
Line 57. Change to: …… (PBS-06), a member of the purple non- 57 sulfur bacteria can prevent and control ToCV in field experiments (data not shown).
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 58).
Line 73. Tomato plants with a temperature of .. and …% humidity.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 74).
Line 179. Between the tomato plants treated with PSB-06 every 5 days and 3 days.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 195-197).
Fig1. Label the x-axis. Days of application or something else.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 203).
Again, we truly appreciate editor’s and reviewers’ enthusiasm about our work. This manuscript has improved tremendously with your constructive criticisms and thorough editing. We believe that the revised manuscript incorporates most of the suggested changes and conforms to journal guidelines.
With respect,
Dingyihui Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript by Lu et al describes the potential demonstrates the resistance phenomenon in tomato plants against ToCV imparted by the application of Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06. I require a few clarifications.
1. Clarity on how PSB-06 is applied is missing. The authors just used the word applied. What does spraying mean, is the pathogen sprayed or over the leaves?
2. Writing and data interpretation requires improvement. It is due to elevation of defense hormones such as SA and JA by application of PSB-06, resistance against ToCV and whitefly has occurred. That interpretation is missing. There are numerous studies where suppression of JA lead to attraction of whiteflies (one such example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311212/) so all I want to point is elevation of JA obviously will have positive effect on reducing whitefly population.
Towards the end of discussion, it is bluntly ended like "which protein of PSB-06 directly interacts with plant or viral proteins merits further exploration. As I mentioned lot of reports are available linking JA/SA and virus-vector control, so the authors are requested to perform eleborate literature search and discuss their results properly.
3. Whenever there is involvement of SA and JA, their markers such as PR genes and PDF1.2 should also be tested.
4. What's the biotype of whitefly used in this study? any idea?
5. Justification for elevation of both chlorophyll biosynthesis and degradation pathways is not enough. The authors should explain more.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript agronomy-1954153 entitled “Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci” has been revised according to the editorial suggestions. Reviewers’ constructive criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have essentially followed most of the changes suggested by the reviewers, and the remaining comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). The following is a point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer 4:
1. Clarity on how PSB-06 is applied is missing. The authors just used the word applied. What does spraying mean, is the pathogen sprayed or over the leaves?
RESPONSE: PSB-06 was sprayed to the leaves of plants (lines 92 & 122 & 140 & 146 & 153 & 166).
- Writing and data interpretation requires improvement. It is due to elevation of defense hormones such as SA and JA by application of PSB-06, resistance against ToCV and whitefly has occurred. That interpretation is missing. There are numerous studies where suppression of JA lead to attraction of whiteflies (one such example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311212/) so all I want to point is elevation of JA obviously will have positive effect on reducing whitefly population.
Towards the end of discussion, it is bluntly ended like "which protein of PSB-06 directly interacts with plant or viral proteins merits further exploration. As I mentioned lot of reports are available linking JA/SA and virus-vector control, so the authors are requested to perform eleborate literature search and discuss their results properly.
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 323-325 & 356-358).
- Whenever there is involvement of SA and JA, their markers such as PR genes and PDF1.2 should also be tested.
RESPONSE: Our additional experiments showed that the activities of catalase (CAT), peroxides (POD) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) increased significantly in tomato plants sprayed PSB-06 to explore effects of PSB-06 on plant defense.
- What's the biotype of whitefly used in this study? any idea?
RESPONSE: In this study, we used B. tabaci MED (lines 71-77).
- Justification for elevation of both chlorophyll biosynthesis and degradation pathways is not enough. The authors should explain more.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 340-344).
Again, we truly appreciate editor’s and reviewers’ enthusiasm about our work. This manuscript has improved tremendously with your constructive criticisms and thorough editing. We believe that the revised manuscript incorporates most of the suggested changes and conforms to journal guidelines.
With respect,
Dingyihui Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you kindly for following most of the comments. I still observe some stylistic errors and would recommend a linguistic improvement of this work. In addition, I have 4 more observations about the manuscript:
1) lines 86-88 and Table 1: Please change the HSP70 gene to HSP70h. In RNA 2 of ToCV, there is a Heat Shock Protein 70 homologue (in ORF5). The HSP70 gene alone is associated with the plant genome, not the virus genome. (Fiallo-Olivé E, Navas-Castillo J. Tomato chlorosis virus, an emergent plant virus still expanding its geographical and host ranges. Mol Plant Pathol. 2019 Sep;20(9):1307-1320. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12847. Epub 2019 Jul 2. PMID: 31267719; PMCID: PMC6715620).
2) Both F and P values have changed in the case of statistics for SA content, nitrogen content, etc. My question is why if the results on the diagrams look similar? Have you changed anything in the calculation parameters? Please ensure that no type I and II errors have been made in statistical calculation.
3) line 330: Please correct the sentence in this line: " [...] the expression of pathogenesis-related protein genes". We cannot talk about the expression of pathogenesis itself. In an earlier remark, I wrote you "[...]activated the expression (or synthesis - depending on whether we are talking about genes or proteins) of pathogenesis..." - the ellipsis was followed by the rest of the sentence unchanged.
4) lines 358-359: Kindly ask you to remove: "[...] may also modulate host-derived olfactory to reduce the invasion of whiteflies" from the sentence. Your research did not concern the aspect of changes in volatile molecules produced by the plant (VOCs) by PSB-06, so this conclusion is not supported by your results.
After taking into account the above comments, in my opinion, the manuscript may be accepted into the Agronomy journal.
With respect,
The reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Manuscript agronomy-1954153 entitled “Rhodopseudomonas palustris PSB-06 induces plant defense and suppresses the transmission of Tomato chlorosis virus by Bemisia tabaci” has been revised according to the editorial suggestions. Reviewers’ constructive criticisms and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have essentially followed most of the changes suggested by the reviewers, and the remaining comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). The following is a point-to-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer 2:
1) lines 86-88 and Table 1: Please change the HSP70 gene to HSP70h. In RNA 2 of ToCV, there is a Heat Shock Protein 70 homologue (in ORF5). The HSP70 gene alone is associated with the plant genome, not the virus genome. (Fiallo-Olivé E, Navas-Castillo J. Tomato chlorosis virus, an emergent plant virus still expanding its geographical and host ranges. Mol Plant Pathol. 2019 Sep;20(9):1307-1320. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12847. Epub 2019 Jul 2. PMID: 31267719; PMCID: PMC6715620).
RESPONSE: Reviewer’s comments have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (lines 86-88 & Table 1).
2) Both F and P values have changed in the case of statistics for SA content, nitrogen content, etc. My question is why if the results on the diagrams look similar? Have you changed anything in the calculation parameters? Please ensure that no type I and II errors have been made in statistical calculation.
RESPONSE: The change in F and P values of SA content and nitrogen content was due to an oversight on our part and the results of the independent sample t-test were incorrect. We have re-analysed the independent sample t-test and made timely changes. We have not changed anything in the calculation parameters. SA content analyzed for HPLC and nitrogen content measured using the OK-Y104 chlorophyll meter. The diagrams are a presentation of the results of the experiment.
3) line 330: Please correct the sentence in this line: " [...] the expression of pathogenesis-related protein genes". We cannot talk about the expression of pathogenesis itself. In an earlier remark, I wrote you "[...]activated the expression (or synthesis - depending on whether we are talking about genes or proteins) of pathogenesis..." - the ellipsis was followed by the rest of the sentence unchanged.
RESPONSE: Done (lines 330).
4) lines 358-359: Kindly ask you to remove: "[...] may also modulate host-derived olfactory to reduce the invasion of whiteflies" from the sentence. Your research did not concern the aspect of changes in volatile molecules produced by the plant (VOCs) by PSB-06, so this conclusion is not supported by your results.
RESPONSE: Done.
Again, we truly appreciate editor’s and reviewers’ enthusiasm about our work. This manuscript has improved tremendously with your constructive criticisms and thorough editing. We believe that the revised manuscript incorporates most of the suggested changes and conforms to journal guidelines.
With respect,
Dingyihui Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
