*4.12. Statistical Analyses and Software*

Results were represented using GraphPad Prism 6, GraphPad Software (La Jolla, California USA; www.graphpad.com), while the statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software (IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Data normality was checked firstly by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The ROS and CW polysaccharide and monosaccharide quantification were analyzed by oneway ANOVA with a Tukey post-test to evaluate the differences between treatments. Data on digestibility were analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with a Tukey post-test. Results were significantly different considering *p <* 0.05. As mentioned above, the PCA and Heatmap were analyzed with R [101].

Foliar lesion areas were quantified using imageJ software [109].

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10 .3390/plants10081514/s1, Figure S1: Experimental design. (A) Seeds of common bean P. vulgaris L. cultivar Riñón were grown in vitro. Leaves from common bean plants at V1 stage were sprayed with 2 mL of 100 μM INA (INA condition) per leaf or with sterilized water (Mock condition). After 7 days, some plants previously treated or not with INA were sprayed with 2 mL of the Pph solution on foliage leaves, resulting in INA + Pph and Mock + Pph treatments. All plants were grown for 7 days more and then, the foliage leaves of 10 plants per treatment were collected. The experiment was repeated three independent times (*n* = 3). Afterwards, CWs were isolated, fractionated and their components analyzed by means of different techniques. (B) The ROS production was determined in V1 plants leaf disks. The reactions were triggered by adding 100 μL water (Mock condition) as negative control, 100 μL 200 μM INA (INA condition) as negative control for toxicity, 100 μL 2 μM flg22 (flg22 condition) as positive control, and also 100 μL 2 μM flg22 to those disks previously incubated overnight with 100 μM INA (preINA+flg22) as experimental condition. The experiment, with 8 plants assayed, was repeated three independent times (*n* = 3).

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.G.D.l.R. and P.G.-A.; methodology, A.G.D.l.R., H.M., A.E., M.L.C. and P.G.-A.; software, A.G.D.l.R.; validation, A.G.D.l.R. and H.M.; formal analysis, A.G.D.l.R.; investigation, A.G.D.l.R. and P.G.-A.; data curation, A.G.D.l.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.D.l.R. and P.G.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.G.D.l.R., H.M., M.L.C., A.E. and P.G.-A.; visualization, A.G.D.l.R. and P.G.-A.; supervision, H.M., A.E. and P.G.-A.; project administration, P.G.-A.; funding acquisition, P.G.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, grant number RTC-2016-5816-2. The APC was funded by a PhD student grant from the Spanish Education Ministry (FPU17/05849).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank Rafael Calvo for the assistance with the English manuscript correction.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

