Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Dec 11;19(12):e0315290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315290

Chemical disruption of ABA signaling overcomes high-temperature inhibition of seed germination and enhances seed priming responses

James Eckhardt 1,2,3, Aditya Vaidya 1,2,4, Sean Cutler 1,2,*
Editor: Mohammad Irfan5
PMCID: PMC11634006  PMID: 39661623

Abstract

Seed germination is critical to agricultural productivity because low germination rates and/or asynchronous germination negatively affect stand establishment and subsequent yields. Exposure to high temperatures during seed imbibition can decrease both germination synchrony and rates through an ABA-mediated process called thermoinhibition. Methods to reduce thermoinhibition would be agriculturally valuable, particularly with increasing global mean temperatures. Lettuce seed germination is particularly sensitive to high temperatures and is a classic system for studying thermoinhibition. Extensive evidence using mutants and carotenoid biosynthetic inhibitors (e.g. fluridone) has demonstrated that endogenous abscisic acid (ABA) biosynthesis is required for thermoinhibition in lettuce and Arabidopsis. Although fluridone and related carotenoid biosynthetic inhibitors block thermoinhibition, they are not well-suited for this application due to their herbicidal effects. Here we explore the potential of ABA receptor antagonism to disrupt thermoinhibition using antabactin (ANT), a broad-spectrum high-affinity receptor antagonist. We show low μM ANT treatments (10 μM) during lettuce seed imbibition reduces thermoinhibition at temperatures of up to 40°C, demonstrating that ABA signaling is required for thermoinhibition and that receptor antagonists are well-suited anti-thermoinhibition agents. We further explored interactions between ANT and seed priming, which is used commercially to improve seed germination and reduce thermoinhibition and is achieved by partial hydration and subsequent desiccation of seeds. We show that co-priming with ANT improves germination at elevated temperatures better than priming alone, and thus, the two treatments can be combined to improve germination. Our data demonstrate that ABA antagonists are potentially useful agrochemical leads for mitigating the effects of high temperatures on seed germination and stand establishment that may be of increasing importance due to climate change. More generally, ABA antagonists should be useful in physiological processes where ABA’s effects are counterproductive to yield.

Introduction

Seed germination is a vital phase in the life cycle of seed plants, influenced by both developmental and environmental factors. During seed development, the seeds of most plants acquire dormancy, which prevents germination under otherwise favorable conditions [1]. To alleviate dormancy, dry storage (after-ripening) or moist chilling (stratification) are often required [2]. Once dormancy is relieved, seed germination is influenced by environmental factors. For example, in many species, non-dormant seeds exposed to supraoptimal temperatures fail to germinate due to a process called thermoinhibition [3, 4]. As global mean temperatures rise, thermoinhibition is problematic for agriculture as it can cause low or asynchronous germination; developing strategies to mitigate the effects of thermoinhibition are critical, particularly in crop species where synchronous, rapid seed germination is necessary for developmental synchrony, stand establishment and yield.

The plant hormone abscisic acid (ABA) is a key regulator of seed dormancy and germination. Numerous lines of evidence from work in Arabidopsis and lettuce have established that both ABA synthesis and signaling are required for thermoinhibition [58]. Lettuce has served as a model system for studying thermoinhibition. QTL studies implicated LsNCED4, a seed-expressed 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase required for ABA biosynthesis, as a determinant of thermotolerance in L. sativa [7, 9, 10]. Subsequent analyses of CRISPR-induced LsNCED4 mutations confirmed that NCED4 is required for thermoinhibition [11]. In Arabidopsis, loss of function NCED6 alleles similarly showed increased germination at high temperatures [5, 6]. In both Arabidopsis and lettuce, fluridone treatments, which lower ABA levels, prevent thermoinhibition and enable seed germination at otherwise inhibitory temperatures, demonstrating that de novo ABA synthesis is required for thermoinhibition of germination [5, 7, 8]. In addition, multiple ABA-insensitive mutants are less sensitive to thermoinhibition than wild-type Arabidopsis [6]. Thus, the role of ABA in inhibiting seed germination under supraoptimal temperatures is well established.

In the United States, over 95% of lettuce is produced in California and Arizona [12], and thermoinhibition is a persistent problem that reduces emergence, stand establishment, and yield [13, 14]. Currently, the main intervention known to improve germination under supraoptimal temperature is seed priming [14]. Seed priming is a widely used pre-sowing treatment to enhance germination, which involves partially hydrating seeds under controlled conditions to initiate germination and then halting the process prior to radicle emergence. This is achieved through osmotic and/or time-regulated methods, followed by drying and storing the seeds [15, 16]. New methods or treatments to improve seed germination would be of general agricultural utility, given the upward trajectory of global temperatures.

In this work, we investigate if ABA signaling antagonists can be used alone or combined with priming to improve germination under high temperatures, focusing on the newly described ABA antagonist antabactin (ANT) [17]. ABA binds to soluble PYR/PYL/RCAR receptors to trigger a conformational change that allows them to complex with and inhibit clade A PP2C phosphatases; this, in turn, leads to the activation of downstream SnRK2 kinases and various downstream cellular effectors [18]. Antabactin (ANT), is a potent (picomolar Kd) pan-receptor ABA receptor antagonist that was designed to disrupt ABA receptor-PP2C interactions and reduce ABA signaling in planta [17]. We have previously shown that ANT treatments accelerate Arabidopsis, tomato, and barley seed germination and block Arabidopsis thermoinhibition [17]. ANT additionally blocks ABA-induced transcriptional responses (i.e. Arabidopsis RD29B and MAPKK18 in Arabidopsis). Here, we examine whether ANT can mitigate thermoinhibition in lettuce both on its own or in combination with seed priming. We demonstrate that ANT treatments prevent thermoinhibiton in seeds over a wide temperature range and can be combined with seed priming to mitigate the inhibitory effects of high temperatures on seed germination.

Methods

Seeds of Lactuca sativa ‘Salinas’ were grown in a greenhouse in summer 2021 and summer 2022 in Riverside, California. After seeds reached maturity, plants were dried for two weeks and seeds were harvested on August 23, 2021 and August 10, 2022. Seeds for priming experiments were harvested on August 10, 2022, October 1, 2022 and January 20, 2023. Sungro Professional Growing Mix was mixed with fertilizer (Osmocote) and insecticide (Marathon 1% Granular) according to manufacturers’ instructions. Plants were fully dried and seeds were collected and after ripened at room temperature in the dark for 1–5 months before experiments were carried out.

Seed germination assays

Surface sterilization

Lettuce seeds were sterilized in room lighting and temperature using the following steps. Seeds were gently shaken for one minute in 70% ethanol. This was followed by fifteen minutes of gentle shaking in 20% bleach and three subsequent washes in sterile water. Seeds were immediately plated after sterilization.

Antabactin promotion of germination (EC50)

To establish the concentration of ANT at which 50% of seeds germinate under thermoinhibition, we conducted assays as follows (adapted from Vaidya et al. 2021). Surface sterilized Salinas seeds (n>35 seeds; seeds were harvested two months prior to the experiment) were plated in Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing ½ Murashige-Skoog (MS) and 10, 5, 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1 μM ANT and mock untreated control (0.1% v/v DMSO). DMSO was used as a carrier solvent to solvate ANT and was added to the media at a 0.1% v/v ratio. Petri dishes were immediately transferred to 32°C and 25°C incubators in the dark. After 48 hours, plates were photographed. Germination was scored as positive based on radicle emergence, and the ET50 (time at which 50% of seeds have germinated) values were inferred by fitting the germination data over time to a 4-parameter log-logistic model in the drc (dose-response curves) R package [19].

Chemical manipulation of ABA biosynthesis and signaling

To compare the effect of fluridone, AbamineSG, and ANT on germination under thermoinhibition, we conducted the following assay: surface sterilized Salinas seeds (n>35 seeds; seeds were harvested two months prior to the experiment) were plated in Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing 1/2 MS salts and either 10 μM ANT, 10 μM fluridone, 100 μM AbamineSG or mock untreated control (1% v/v DMSO). Petri dishes were immediately transferred to 32°C and 25°C incubators in the dark. After 48 hours, plates were photographed. Germination was scored upon radicle emergence.

Comparison with other hormone treatments

Surface sterilized Salinas seeds (n = 40 seeds) were plated in Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing 1/2 MS salts and either 10 μM ANT, 100 μM GA, 100nM KAR1 or mock untreated control (1% v/v DMSO). Petri dishes were immediately transferred to 32°C and 25°C incubators in the dark. After 48 hours, plates were photographed. Germination was scored upon radicle emergence.

Effective temperature range of ANT

We performed the following assay to determine the upper-temperature range at which ANT promotes germination. Surface sterilized Salinas seeds (n>35 seeds; seeds were harvested two months prior to the experiment) were plated in Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing 1/2 MS salts and either 10 μM ANT or mock untreated control (0.1% v/v DMSO). Petri dishes were immediately transferred to 25°C, 32°C, 37°C, 40°C and 45°C incubators in dark. Petri dishes were imaged at 48 hours and 120 hours. After the 120-hour time point, all plates were transferred to the 25°C incubator and imaged after 72 hours in the dark at 25°C to determine if the seeds were thermoinhibited or thermodormant. Seeds incubated at 45°C were stained with tetrazolium to determine viability. Staining was carried out as described in HCRM Catão et al. 2018 [20].

Gene expression assays

Gene expression assays were conducted using RNA isolated from seeds and leaves. Salinas seeds were grown on Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing 1/2 MS salts and either 10 μM ANT or mock untreated control (0.1% v/v DMSO). Seeds were grown for 24 hours in the dark before RNA extraction. Each treatment was conducted in biological triplicate. 50 mg of whole seed tissue was collected and used for RNA extraction. To measure ABA responses in leaf tissue, ~ 1 cm leaf discs were isolated from 2-week-old seedlings and incubated with either 100 μM ABA, 100 μM ABA, and 50 μM ANT or mock untreated control (0.1% v/v DMSO) for 8 hours in 70 μmol/m2/s light before RNA extraction. The total RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Cat No. 74904). Immediately after collection, plant tissue was added to QIAGEN Buffer RLC and homogenized using three 10-second cycles of 6500rpm in a Precellys 24 after which extraction was completed as described by QIAGEN. Genomic DNA was eliminated and cDNA was synthesized with the QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit (QIAGEN, Cat No. 205311) according to the manufacturer’s instructions using 500ng of RNA. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed with CFX Connect Real-Time PCR Detection System using Maxima SYBR Green/Fluorescein qPCR Master Mix (Thermo Scientific, Cat No. K0242) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Initial denaturation at 95°C was run for 3:00, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95°C for 0:10), annealing (55°C for 0:10) and extension (72°C for 0:20). The relative expression level of the genes was normalized against the reference gene UBC21 by ΔCT Method. Statistical tests were performed using the raw ΔCT values. A pairwise t-test was used to assess the differences between treatments.

The primers used in the experiments are listed as follows

LsUBC21: 5’TCTTAGATCACCGTCCCATCGT3’, 5’TCTGAGATTGTCCGAGGATATGAG3’

LsNCED4: 5’TGATCCAGCGGTTCAGCTAA3’, 5’TTCACCAATTACCTCCAGACCAT3’

LsM3K18A (Lsat_1_v5_gn_7_91420): 5’ATGATTGAAATGGCCACCGG3’, 5’TGATCGGAAAATTCATCTGGGA3’.

Seed priming

Seeds were primed in -1.25mPa PEG8000 (0.2968g/mL). Water potential was calculated as in Michel 1983 [21]. Seeds were placed in Petri dishes on blotting paper with 10mL of PEG solution and either 10 μM ANT or mock untreated control (0.1% v/v DMSO). Seeds were at 9°C in low light (1 μM) for 48 hours, rinsed three times with water, dried at 32°C in an incubator for 2 hours, and then stored for >48 hours at 9°C in the dark before use. For germination experiments, seeds were surface sterilized and plated in Petri dishes on 0.7% agar medium containing 1/2 MS salts. Seeds were incubated in the dark at 35°C for 24 hours before germination was quantified.

Approximately 10mg of primed seeds were extracted in 500uL MeOH. Seeds were put through two homogenization cycles in a Precellys 24. Three 10-second cycles of 6500rpm were used. After homogenization, tubes were centrifuged at 13.3rpm for 2 minutes, and 100uL of supernatant was used for LC-MS. For ANT spiked samples, a 1% v/v solution of ANT in MeOH was added to PEG-only primed seeds to make 125, 250, 500, and 1000nM final concentrations. The analysis of ANT was performed on an Agilent 1260 HPLC system coupled with an Agilent 6224 ESI TOF in positive ion mode. Chromatographic separation was carried out on an Agilent Poroshell 120 EC-C18 column (50 x 3mm, 2.7 μM) using mobile phases A (water/formic acid, 100/0.1, v/v) and B (acetonitrile/formic acid, 100/0.1, v/v). The flow rate was 0.5mL/min and the injection volume was 5uL.

Phylogeny

The coding regions of the 21 mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinases (MAP3K) were downloaded from TAIR. Homologous genes to MAP3K18 in Lactuca sativa were identified by using NCBI blastn, and three homologous sequences were selected. Using MEGA (Version 11.0.13), the nucleotide sequences were aligned by MUSCLE [22]. A maximum likelihood tree was then constructed in MEGA using default settings. Bootstrap support values were derived from 500 replicate analyses in MEGA.

Results

ANT and germination efficacy

To test if thermoinhibition requires ABA signaling, we tested if ANT treatments could improve seed germination at supra-optimal temperatures, using the ABA biosynthetic inhibitor fluridone as a positive control. We also tested abamineSG, which has not previously been tested in lettuce but in Arabidopsis, which was shown to inhibit the NCEDs required for ABA biosynthesis (see Fig 1C for the structures of the molecules tested). At 32°C in dark conditions, L. sativa ‘Salinas’ germination was greatly reduced, with mean germination between 0–18% after 48 hours (Fig 1A, 1B. Control seeds, germinated at 25°C, showed 100% germination, and fluridone (10 μM), a carotenoid biosynthetic inhibitor, fully restored germination (to thermoinhibited seeds at 32°C). ANT treatment (10 μM) also restored germination under high temperatures to 97% (Fig 1B). AbamineSG (100 μM), an NCED inhibitor, did not promote germination (Fig 1B). In addition to biosyntheticinhibitors, ANT was compared to common seed treatments (Fig 1D). ANT is more potent than gibberellic acid (GA) and karrikin 1 (KAR1) treatments. GA (100 μM) and KAR1 (100 nM) treatments led to similar germination rates to mock after two days in the dark at 32°C, 8%, 10% and 18%, respectively. As before, 10 μM ANT nearly fully restored germination (94%, Fig 1D). ANT matches the germination-enhancing capabilities of fluridone and is more effective than GA, KAR1 and abamineSG, underscoring its efficacy in counteracting the adverse effects of high temperatures on seed germination and demonstrating the importance of ABA signaling in thermoinhibition. Collectively, these experiments establish chemical inhibition of ABA signaling can be used to overcome thermoinhibition in lettuce.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

ANT improves L. sativa ‘Salinas’ germination under thermoinhibition (A) ANT and fluridone reverse thermoinhibition in L. sativa ‘Salinas’. Representative images are shown. (B) Barplot summarizing germination. Germination was quantified for seeds imbibed on plates containing DMSO (mock-treated), 10 μM ANT, 10 μM fluridone or 100 μM AbamineSG (representative image in S1 Fig) and grown for 48h. (C) Structures of antabactin, abamineSG and fluridone. (D) GA and KAR1 did not reverse thermoinhibition. Germination was quantified for seeds imbibed on plates containing DMSO, 10 μM ANT, 100 μM GA or 100nM KAR1 and grown for 48h. (E) ANT is potent in the low micromolar range. Germination was quantified for seeds after growth on plates for 24h at 32°C. ET50 value inset in the graph are inferred by nonlinear fits in drc. (F) 10 μM ANT reverses thermoinhibition at temperatures of up to 40°C. Germination was quantified seeds after growth in either ANT or mock (DMSO) for 48h. In (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F), liquid sterilized seeds were grown on ½ MS, 0.7% agar plates in the dark. Error bars indicate SEM (n = 3).

To assess the effectiveness of ANT in mitigating thermoinhibition across a range of temperatures and ANT concentrations, we conducted two experiments. The first experiment explored the impact of varying ANT concentrations (0.25–10 μM) on thermoinhibited lettuce seeds. In the second experiment, we investigated the germination rates of ANT and mock-treated seeds at temperatures ranging from 32°C to 45°C. ANT is potent in the low micromolar range and at high temperatures. The EC50 of ANT is 2.11 μM (Fig 1E). Lettuce seeds were grown for two days in the dark at 32°C in six ANT concentrations (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, and 10 μM). 10 μM ANT nearly fully restored germination (91% mean), and 0.25 μM ANT had little effect (7% mean). Since 10 μM ANT restored germination under thermoinhibition, we tested to determine the upper-temperature limit of ANT effect. After 120 hours, ANT promoted germination at 37°C and 40°C (S2 Fig). At 37°C, 10 μM ANT treatment resulted in 82% germination, and at 40°C ANT treatment resulted in 74% germination. Germination was also quantified at 48 hours, and the higher temperatures slowed germination at 37°C and 40°C, leading to only 47% and 8% germination, respectively (Fig 1F). At 45°C, lettuce seeds were dead and no longer viable at 120 hours, and this was confirmed through tetrazolium staining (S3 Fig). These results demonstrate the importance of ABA signaling in germination at high temperatures and show that ANT can reduce thermoinhibition in the low micromolar range.

Gene expression

To quantify the effect of ANT on the expression of genes associated with thermoinhibition and ABA signaling, we analyzed LsM3K18A, a lettuce homolog of MAPKKK18, a well-characterized ABA response marker gene from Arabidopsis, and the expression levels of LsNCED4, an ABA biosynthetic gene previously implicated in lettuce seed thermoinhibition [7, 23]. First, we wanted to confirm that ANT blocks ABA-mediated transcriptional responses in lettuce. To facilitate this, we identified MAPKKK18 homologs that we named LsM3K18A, B, and C, which phylogenetic analyses show are closely related to AtMAPKKK18 and AtMAPKKK17 (Fig 2A). We imbibed lettuce leaves in mock, ABA and ABA + ANT treatments, extracted RNA and quantified LsM3K18A response through qRT-PCR analyses. LsM3K18A was significantly upregulated (9.5 fold increase) in response to exogenous ABA treatment (100 μM), and this is blocked by a coapplication of ANT (50 μM) and ABA (100 μM) (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. ANT alters the expression of thermoinhibition and ABA-regulated genes.

Fig 2

(A) Tree inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method and the Tamura-Nei model showing the three subgroups of MAP3Ks in Arabidopsis and the three lettuce homologs of AtMAP3K18 identified by BLAST. Bootstrap support values, derived from 500 replicate analyses, are displayed on the tree to indicate the reliability of each branch. (B) ANT treatment reduces the LsM3K18A expression (normalized to UBC21) measured by qRT-PCR of lettuce leaves in (DMSO) or 100 μM ABA or 100 μM ABA and 50 μM ANT in water. (C) ANT treatment reduces LsNCED4 expression (normalized to UBC21) measured by qRT-PCR of seeds grown for 24 hours in mock (DMSO) or 10 μM ANT. Liquid sterilized seeds were grown in ½ MS, 0.7% agar plates in the dark. * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01 (pairwise two sample t-test corrected for multiple comparisons). Error bars indicate SEM (n = 3).

Previous research by Argyris et al. 2008 identified a number of thermoinhibition-responsive genes, one of which was LsNCED4, an ABA biosynthetic gene [7]. LsNCED4 is upregulated during thermoinhibition, and we wanted to determine if ANT could reverse this upregulation. We imbibed mock-treated lettuce seeds at 25°C and mock and ANT treated seeds at 32°C, extracted RNA and quantified LsNCED4 response through qRT-PCR analyses. At 32°C in the dark after 24 hours, it was upregulated 118-fold while at the same temperature LsNCED4 in ANT-treated seeds was only upregulated 15-fold over mock at 25°C (Fig 2C). The increased expression under thermoinhibition was consistent with earlier studies and the ANT treatments block the thermoinhbition-associated increase in LsNCED4 transcript levels. We were not able to show any upregulation of LsNCED4 through exogenous ABA application in leaf tissue (S4 Fig). However, LsNCED4 expression had only previously been shown to increase under thermoinhibition with no data on ABA upregulation in lettuce. As such our data for LsNCED4 is consistent with previous experiments in lettuce. Taken together, these analyses show that ANT modulates the expression of key genes involved in ABA signaling, LsM3K18A, and thermoinhibition, LsNCED4, and identified LsM3K18A as an ABA-responsive gene marker gene in lettuce.

Seed priming

We next explored the potential of delivering ANT into seeds through osmotic priming to assess whether including ANT in the priming process could have an additive effect. We osmotically primed seeds in PEG8000 with and without ANT to deliver ANT into seeds to investigate the uptake and germination effects. Osmotic priming with ANT leads to ANT uptake and storage within lettuce seeds. Three different batches of seeds primed in a solution of 10 μM ANT and -1.25mPa PEG showed they contained ANT (Fig 3A). Seeds were primed, dried, and stored for 5–7 days before extraction and ANT level quantification and all showed ANT similar to seeds primed with only PEG and later spiked with 500nM ANT before LC-MS analysis. The three primed seed batches showed an average of 30% higher germination rates when primed with ANT than solely PEG at 35°C after 24 hours (Fig 3B and 3C). The seeds that were stored (after-ripened) the longest after harvest had the highest germination under both ANT and mock, 90% and 52% respectively; seeds with the shortest after ripening, 1.5 months, had the lowest germination 30% and 9%. This suggests that priming seeds with ANT has an additive effect with priming and has the potential to improve germination rates under thermoinhibition.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Priming with ANT improves lettuce seed germination (A) Extracted ion chromatograms (EIC) for ANT+H m/z 611.270 (+/- 50 ppm). (B) Priming seeds with ANT improves germination rates under thermoinhibition. Germination was quantified for seeds after ripening for 7, 5, and 1.5 months (MAR) primed in -1.25 Mpa solution of PEG 8000 and either 100 μM ANT or mock (DMSO). Primed seeds were plated on ½ MS, 0.7% agar plates, and germination was quantified at 24h at 35°C. *** indicates p < 0.01 (two-sample t-tests). Error bars indicate SEM (n = 3). (C) Representative images are shown.

Discussion

The phytohormone abscisic acid (ABA) is a critical regulator of thermoinhibition [5, 8, 24]. Lettuce seeds are thermoinhibited at temperatures below the limit for healthy seedling growth, and ABA is an important regulator of this thermoinhibition [3, 8]. Exogenous ABA can reduce the upper limit for germination, and upon thermoinhibition, endogenous ABA levels increase [7].

Herein, we use a new tool to validate ABA’s regulation of thermoinhibition by directly blocking ABA signaling with the ABA antagonist antabactin (ANT). To understand the extent of ABA’s regulation of germination, we compared it to other chemicals known to influence germination. The phytohormone GA promotes seed germination. In part, it does this by negatively affecting ABA biosynthesis and signaling and promoting ABA catabolism. Argyris et al. 2008 showed that the GA effect of germination in lettuce seeds was variety-dependent, with L. sativa ‘Salinas’ being less affected by GA application [7]. This trend remained consistent in my experiments, where GA did not improve germination under thermoinhibition. Karrikins have also been shown to improve germination in lettuce [25]. Karrikins are chemicals in smoke that can enhance germination, and in L. sativa ‘Grand Rapids’, they have improved germination rates under adverse conditions, specifically after a far-red pulse. However, karrikins have not been tested to reduce the effects of thermoinhibition. In L. sativa ‘Salinas’, we showed that KAR1 treatment did not improve germination rates under temperatures that induced thermoinhibition. While there could be various effects, with ‘Salinas’ showing less KAR1 response than ‘Grand Rapids’, these results suggest lettuce seed thermoinhibition is not influenced by karrikins. These results collectively suggest that GA and karrikins are not the central regulators of thermoinhibition.

Previous research has implicated ABA as the primary regulator of thermoinhibition. Chemically, this was demonstrated with fluridone, an ABA biosynthetic inhibitor. Fluridone is a carotenoid biosynthetic inhibitor. It acts by inhibiting phytoene desaturase, which converts phytoene to phytofluene, an early precursor of ABA [26, 27]. Fluridone application results in reduced de novo ABA biosynthesis but is a nonspecific inhibitor as it also reduces the synthesis of many other carotenoids, which are often signaling molecules in plants, including strigolactone, another phytohormone [28, 29]. Additionally, blocking carotenoid biosynthesis has an herbicidal effect by removing the photoprotective carotenoids. Despite these disadvantages, it is the most widely used ABA biosynthetic inhibitor. In many species, fluridone promotes and accelerates germination under thermoinhibition. This is also true of lettuce, where applying fluridone promotes germination and reduces the ABA content in imbibed seeds [7, 28]. Although fluridone has some application as an inhibitor in research, its herbicidal effects negate any use in agriculture. While cumulative evidence suggests that ABA is the central regulator of thermoinhibition in lettuce, it depends on indirect evidence, highlighting the need for direct evidence of the regulatory role of ABA in thermoinhibition.

We directly confirmed the central role of ABA signaling in thermoinhibition by blocking ABA signaling with ANT. We applied ANT to thermoinhibited lettuce seeds, and it fully restored germination. This provides direct evidence that ABA is the primary regulator of thermoinhibition in lettuce, suggesting a clear target for crop improvement. We previously showed that ANT also reduces time to germination in heat-treated Arabidopsis seeds, directly demonstrating ABA regulates thermoinhibition in multiple species and that ANT is a valuable tool to assess this across species [17]. Previous research has also suggested that the NCEDs are the rate-limiting step in ABA biosynthesis. Abamine is an NCED inhibitor and reduces ABA accumulation in planta and promotes seed germination; however, it is phytotoxic [30, 31]. More recently, AbamineSG was developed and demonstrated reduced phytotoxicity and led to reduced ABA content by NCED inhibition [32, 33]. In our experiments, AbamineSG application did not improve germination under thermoinhibition, likely due to ineffective action rather than the NCEDs not being important.

To further confirm ANT’s role in inhibiting ABA signaling, we quantified ABA and thermoinhibition-regulated gene transcript levels. ANT reduces thermoinhibition by blocking ABA signaling, affecting the expression of ABA-regulated genes. Specifically, the ABA marker gene M3K18 in Arabidopsis, which is upregulated by ABA or osmotic stress, returns to normal levels following ANT treatment. M3K18 shares a close sequence and transcriptional profile with M3K17, and both genes are functionally redundant [34]. In lettuce, the homologous gene LsM3K18A demonstrated increased expression upon ABA treatment, which ANT treatment subsequently reduced to levels comparable to the control. This indicates LsM3K18A as a useful ABA marker gene in lettuce. LsNCED4 is a well-known factor in influencing thermoinhibition in lettuce [7, 11, 35]. LsNCED4 is the homolog of AtNCED6 [36]. The NCEDs catalyzes a rate-limiting step in ABA biosynthesis; the oxidative cleavage of 9-cis vioxanthin or neoxanthin to xanthoxin, thus, loss of function of the NCEDs results in reduced ABA biosynthesis. This is also the first committed step in ABA biosynthesis [32, 37]. Deletions in LsNCED4 were shown to dramatically increase the maximum temperature at which lettuce could germinate [11]. This directly implicates ABA biosynthesis, and thus, levels and signaling lead to thermoinhibition. Expression of LsNCED4 was previously shown to increase during thermoinhibition, and we found similar trends (Fig 2C) [7]. ANT application, which blocks ABA signaling, reduces expression of LsNCED4. Both LsM3K18A and LsNCED4 expression patterns further demonstrate that ANT’s action results from transcriptional regulation of ABA and thermoinhibition-regulated genes.

Transcriptional and chemical approaches have shown that ANT acts through blocking ABA signaling to reduce germination thermoinhibition. We next wanted to quantify the temperature range at which ABA signaling was responsible for thermoinhibition. Argyris et al. 2008 showed that germination of L. sativa ‘Salinas’ decreases at 27°C with germination being fully thermoinhibited at 29°C [9]. Thermoinhibition affects a broad range of crisphead lettuce varieties, as demonstrated by Lafta and Mou (2013). Their study found that, when germinating all tested crisphead lettuce varieties at 34°C, none exhibited a germination rate higher than 80%, with the majority not exceeding 50% germination. To determine whether ANT could improve germination at high temperatures, we first calculated an EC50 for ANT at 2.11 μM at 32°C, and, at 10 μM concentrations, germination is fully restored. As such, we used 10 μM ANT for further germination tests. We wanted to determine the extent to which ABA contributes to thermoinhibition even at very high temperatures. Blocking ABA signaling at temperatures of 40°C results in 74% germination. This shows that ABA is the major contributor to thermoinhibition in lettuce, even at very high temperatures. However, upon restoration to normal temperatures, 100% of seeds germinated, suggesting one of two things. Either the ABA effect is not the only factor contributing to thermoinhibition or ANT is not fully blocking ABA signaling. Of note is that germination did slow under 37°C and 40°C, and while at 32°C nearly 100% of seeds were germinated at 48 hours, it took 120 hours before 40°C germination reached 74%. Temperatures of 45°C killed seeds, also suggesting that ABA is the major contributor to thermoinhibition up to the point where seeds are no longer viable.

In agriculture, final emergence rate and synchrony of germination are important factors in determining final crop yield, and, as ABA is the major contributor to thermoinhibition, we wanted to determine if there could be an agriculturally relevant way to deliver ANT to seeds to improve emergence. Previously, targeting NCEDs through CRISPR has been discussed as a way to target ABA-induced thermoinhibition, and it is successful in restoring germination. However, this method has its challenges [11]. Firstly, gene editing is regulated, and this process must be done to every variety of lettuce grown to produce the desired effect. Secondly, lettuce is grown in a hot climate, and the NCEDs are important parts of the ABA biosynthetic pathway. ABA controls stomatal aperture and thus transpiration, and altering these processes may harm lettuce plants later in their growth [18]. Pre-germination seed treatments can mitigate these issues. As such, we osmotically primed lettuce seeds in PEG and ANT to improve their germination under thermoinhibition. Priming has already been shown to improve germination traits [3, 15, 16]. Additionally, hormonal priming with ABA reduces germination, suggesting that a hormonal priming treatment targeting the ABA pathway can have lasting effects [38]. Our priming treatment successfully delivered ANT into seeds, as shown by LC-MS. Spiking mock-primed seeds with 500nM ANT showed the same peak area as the ANT-primed seeds, suggesting that the concentration of ANT in primed seeds was at least somewhat similar to the 500nM concentration. Priming with ANT and PEG over just PEG promoted higher germination rates and could be beneficial in an agricultural setting by greatly reducing ABA signaling. ANT priming has the potential to be applied to other crops where ABA signaling blocks germination. In light of increased global food demand and the variety of abiotic and biotic factors challenging food production, crop production will need to expand to less suitable growing environments. As this production expands, so will the challenges facing growers. ANT provides another tool to meet these growing challenges.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. ANT and fluridone reverse thermoinhibition in L. sativa ‘Salinas’ while abamineSG has no effect.

Germination was quantified for seeds imbibed on plates containing DMSO (mock-treated), 10 μM ANT, 10 μM fluridone or 100 μM AbamineSG and grown for 48h. Representative images are shown.

(TIF)

pone.0315290.s001.TIF (5.5MB, TIF)
S2 Fig. ANT treatment restores germination at temperatures of up to 40°C.

(A) Seeds treated with 10 μM ANT begin to germinate at temperatures of up to 40°C after 12048 hours of imbibition. (B) After 120 hours of heat treatment and 72 hours of recovery in dark at 25°C, seeds germinate.

(TIF)

pone.0315290.s002.TIF (12.7MB, TIF)
S3 Fig. L. sativa ‘Salinas’ seeds are no longer viable at 45°C.

Seeds were imbibed in dark in 10 μM ANT or mock treatment at 45°C for 120 hours before tetrazolium staining. These seeds were compared to mock-treated seeds grown in the dark for 24 hours before staining.

(TIF)

pone.0315290.s003.TIF (10.4MB, TIF)
S4 Fig. ABA treatment does not significantly increase LsNCED4 expression.

ABA and ABA + ANT treatments do not alter LsNCED4 expression (normalized to UBC21) measured by qRT-PCR of lettuce leaves in (DMSO) or 100 μM ABA or 100 μM ABA and 50 μM ANT in water (pairwise t test, p>0.05).

(TIF)

pone.0315290.s004.TIF (828KB, TIF)
S1 Data. Raw data for all figures.

(XLSX)

pone.0315290.s005.xlsx (21.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to David Nelson for his generous donation of KAR1, and Tadao Asami for his generous donation of AbamineSG.

Data Availability

All data presented can be found in supplementalData.xlsx.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by NSF IOS grant 1656890. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Baskin JM, Baskin CC. A classification system for seed dormancy. Seed Sci Res. 2004;14: 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Allen PS, Benech‐Arnold RL, Batlla D. Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination. Bradford KJ, Nonogaki H, editors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2007. pp. 72–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cantliffe DJ, Shuler KD, Gliedes AC. Overcoming Seed Thermodormancy in a Heat Sensitive Romaine Lettuce by Seed Priming1. HortScience. 1981;16: 196–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reynolds T, Thompson PA. Characterisation of the high temperature inhibition of germination of lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Physiol Plant. 1971;24: 544–547. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Toh S, Imamura A, Watanabe A, Nakabayashi K, Okamoto M, Jikumaru Y, et al. High temperature-induced abscisic acid biosynthesis and its role in the inhibition of gibberellin action in Arabidopsis seeds. Plant Physiol. 2008;146: 1368–1385. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.113738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tamura N, Yoshida T, Tanaka A, Sasaki R, Bando A, Toh S, et al. Isolation and characterization of high temperature-resistant germination mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol. 2006;47: 1081–1094. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcj078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Argyris J, Dahal P, Hayashi E, Still DW, Bradford KJ. Genetic variation for lettuce seed thermoinhibition is associated with temperature-sensitive expression of abscisic Acid, gibberellin, and ethylene biosynthesis, metabolism, and response genes. Plant Physiol. 2008;148: 926–947. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.125807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gonai T, Kawahara S, Tougou M, Satoh S, Hashiba T, Hirai N, et al. Abscisic acid in the thermoinhibition of lettuce seed germination and enhancement of its catabolism by gibberellin. J Exp Bot. 2004;55: 111–118. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Argyris J, Dahal P, Truco MJ, Ochoa O, Still DW, Michelmore RW, et al. Genetic analysis of lettuce seed thermoinhibition. Acta Hortic. 2008; 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Argyris J, Truco MJ, Ochoa O, Knapp SJ, Still DW, Lenssen GM, et al. Quantitative trait loci associated with seed and seedling traits in Lactuca. Theor Appl Genet. 2005;111: 1365–1376. doi: 10.1007/s00122-005-0066-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bertier LD, Ron M, Huo H, Bradford KJ, Britt AB, Michelmore RW. High-Resolution Analysis of the Efficiency, Heritability, and Editing Outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-Induced Modifications of NCED4 in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa). G3. 2018;8: 1513–1521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vegetables 2022 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture; 2023. Feb. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lafta A, Mou B. Evaluation of lettuce genotypes for seed thermotolerance. HortScience. 2013;48: 708–714. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cantliffe DJ, Guedes AC, Shuler KD. OVERCOMING THERMODORMANCY IN A HEAT-SENSITIVE ROMAINE LETTUCE SEED BY PRIMING. HORTSCIENCE. AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE 701 NORTH SAINT ASAPH STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VA …; 1980. pp. 405–405. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bradford KJ. Manipulation of seed water relations via osmotic priming to improve germination under stress. HortScience. 1986;21: 1105–1112. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Paparella S, Araújo SS, Rossi G, Wijayasinghe M, Carbonera D, Balestrazzi A. Seed priming: state of the art and new perspectives. Plant Cell Rep. 2015;34: 1281–1293. doi: 10.1007/s00299-015-1784-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vaidya AS, Peterson FC, Eckhardt J, Xing Z, Park S-Y, Dejonghe W, et al. Click-to-lead design of a picomolar ABA receptor antagonist with potent activity in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2108281118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cutler SR, Rodriguez PL, Finkelstein RR, Abrams SR. Abscisic acid: emergence of a core signaling network. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61: 651–679. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D. Dose-Response Analysis Using R. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0146021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Catão HCRM Gomes LAA, Guimarães RM Fonseca PHF, Caixeta F Galvão AG. Physiological and biochemical changes in lettuce seeds during storage at different temperatures. Hortic Bras. 2018;36: 118–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Michel BE. Evaluation of the water potentials of solutions of polyethylene glycol 8000 both in the absence and presence of other solutes. Plant Physiol. 1983;72: 66–70. doi: 10.1104/pp.72.1.66 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tamura K, Stecher G, and Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis. 2021. Available: http://www.megasoftware.net [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Matsui A, Ishida J, Morosawa T, Mochizuki Y, Kaminuma E, Endo TA, et al. Arabidopsis transcriptome analysis under drought, cold, high-salinity and ABA treatment conditions using a tiling array. Plant Cell Physiol. 2008;49: 1135–1149. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcn101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Finch-Savage WE, Leubner-Metzger G. Seed dormancy and the control of germination. New Phytol. 2006;171: 501–523. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01787.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Martinez SE, Conn CE, Guercio AM, Sepulveda C, Fiscus CJ, Koenig D, et al. A KARRIKIN INSENSITIVE2 paralog in lettuce mediates highly sensitive germination responses to karrikinolide. Plant Physiol. 2022;190: 1440–1456. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiac328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bartels PG, Watson CW. Inhibition of Carotenoid Synthesis by Fluridone and Norflurazon. Weed Sci. 1978;26: 198–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fong F, Schiff JA. Blue-light-induced absorbance changes associated with carotenoids in Euglena. Planta. 1979;146: 119–127. doi: 10.1007/BF00388221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yoshioka T, Endo T, Satoh S. Restoration of Seed Germination at Supraoptimal Temperatures by Fluridone, an Inhibitor of Abscisic Acid Biosynthesis. Plant Cell Physiol. 1998;39: 307–312. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roth-Bejerano N, Sedee NJA, van der Meulen RM, Wang M. The role of abscisic acid in germination of light-sensitive and light-insensitive lettuce seeds. Seed Sci Res. 1999;9: 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Han S-Y, Kitahata N, Sekimata K, Saito T, Kobayashi M, Nakashima K, et al. A novel inhibitor of 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase in abscisic acid biosynthesis in higher plants. Plant Physiol. 2004;135: 1574–1582. doi: 10.1104/pp.104.039511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Han S-Y, Kitahata N, Saito T, Kobayashi M, Shinozaki K, Yoshida S, et al. A new lead compound for abscisic acid biosynthesis inhibitors targeting 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2004;14: 3033–3036. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2004.04.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schwartz SH, Qin X, Zeevaart JAD. Elucidation of the indirect pathway of abscisic acid biosynthesis by mutants, genes, and enzymes. Plant Physiol. 2003;131: 1591–1601. doi: 10.1104/pp.102.017921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kitahata N, Han S-Y, Noji N, Saito T, Kobayashi M, Nakano T, et al. A 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase inhibitor for use in the elucidation of abscisic acid action mechanisms. Bioorg Med Chem. 2006;14: 5555–5561. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2006.04.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Danquah A, de Zélicourt A, Boudsocq M, Neubauer J, Frei Dit Frey N, Leonhardt N, et al. Identification and characterization of an ABA-activated MAP kinase cascade in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2015;82: 232–244. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Huo H, Dahal P, Kunusoth K, McCallum CM, Bradford KJ. Expression of 9-cis-EPOXYCAROTENOID DIOXYGENASE4 is essential for thermoinhibition of lettuce seed germination but not for seed development or stress tolerance. Plant Cell. 2013;25: 884–900. doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.108902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sawada Y, Aoki M, Nakaminami K, Mitsuhashi W, Tatematsu K, Kushiro T, et al. Phytochrome- and gibberellin-mediated regulation of abscisic acid metabolism during germination of photoblastic lettuce seeds. Plant Physiol. 2008;146: 1386–1396. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.115162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nambara E, Marion-Poll A. Abscisic acid biosynthesis and catabolism. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005;56: 165–185. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tarquis AM, Bradford KJ. Prehydration and Priming Treatments that Advance Germination also Increase the Rate of Deterioration of Lettuce Seeds. J Exp Bot. 1992;43: 307–317. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammad Irfan

18 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-20564The ABA receptor antagonist antabactin restores the germination of thermoinhibited lettuce seedsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cutler,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field. The reviewers found the work interesting but raised several issues which need to be addressed properly. The reviewers provide detailed comments in their reviews and point out the areas where the manuscript needs to be improved. I also read the manuscript carefully and largely agree with the reviewers’ comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Irfan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This work was supported by NSF IOS grant 1656890."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors wish to express their gratitude to David Nelson for his generous donation of KAR1, and Tadao Asami for his generous donation of AbamineSG. This work was partially supported by NSF grant 1656890."

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"The authors wish to express their gratitude to David Nelson for his generous donation of KAR1, and Tadao Asami for his generous donation of AbamineSG. This work was partially supported by NSF grant 1656890."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article is on understanding dormancy in lettuce seeds. The authors studied ABA and ANT to investigate if it can mitigate the effects of dormancy and high temperatures on seed germination. The authors looked into many aspects including gene expression. The article needs to be rewritten as it lacks scientific coherency.

• Introduction is very general and incoherent. Many sentences seem out of place and lack references. Please rewrite the introduction and make it more scientific. The problem is not introduced properly, and many different aspects are discussed without providing proper context. Greatly recommend to rewrite introduction and make it less vague. ANT is also not properly discussed. For an improved structure, consider starting with dormancy and its importance in agriculture, then the crops that require it. Later move on to how is it regulated, then hormones, then regulators. Then go to examples. Discuss ANT and previous work done on ANT.

• Make sure to correctly explain the relation between ANT, ABA and MAP kinase. Its very vague in introduction.

• The writing is not up to the mark. Greatly recommend that this paper should be reviewed thoroughly. The presentation is weak and not coherent.

• In methods, please provide the conditions in which the Seeds of Lactuca sativa ‘Salinas’ were grown in a greenhouse.

• It is not clear from the methods is what tissue was used for gene expression study. If seeds were grown in dark for only 24 hours, was RNA extracted from seed? Was extracted from endosperm or radicle or cotyledon. Please explain the right procedure used.

• Why 50 mg for seeds (considering seed was used) and 100 mg for leaf tissue for RNA extraction.

• Not much information was provided oh how the gene expression analysis. I recommend reading MIQE guidelines and provide as many details as possible.

• Why were ABA and ANT treatments not conducted on live plants. Why was detached and cut leaf was used. Once leaves or any tissues are cut the physiology changes. How does it represent true gene expression.

• Were tissues snap frozen in liquid nitrogen before RNA extraction?

• Only UBC21 was used as reference gene for normalization. However, the current standard is to use at least two reference genes. Pleas explain.

• Many sentences in the results should have been part of discussion. In results only the results should be mentioned.

Lines 51 – 52: Please elaborate more and add a reference.

Lines 51 – 59: The paragraph is incoherent and general. Please rephrase to add clarity.

Lines 67 – 69: The above paragraph is a discussion about hormones and (DOG1) a regulator is discussed without a context. Seems out of place.

Line 127: Just curious why was DMSO used as control instead of DI water.

Lines 123 – 129: Is this method of ANT treatment based on previously reported methods? if so, please provide references.

Lines 156: What two tissue types were used ?

Lines 155 – 171: Very vague. Please rewrite.

Lines 203 – 207: This should be part of the discussion.

Lines 203 – 219: The result section is not very clear. Please explain the inference drawn coherently.

Lines 247 – 249: This inference drawn is not accurate. It only shows ANT has effect on germination. How did you conclude ABA signaling was involved? This should be part of discussion not results.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript titled “The ABA receptor antagonist antabactin restores the germination of thermoinhibited lettuce seeds,” the authors have done an excellent work in understanding the molecular mechanism and solving the problem of seed vigor in lettuce. This work is directly applicable to the agriculture of lettuce and may be further extended to other commercial crops. I have the followings comments and recommendations:

Comments:

1. Figure 1A contains a picture plate, a graph, and the molecular structure of the chemical. Divide these into sub-figures. Nothing is mentioned about the molecule's chemical structure in the text or the figure legend. The authors should mention it in both places.

2. Line 208: Mention both pictures and graphs in-text for readers to easily refer to the data discussed.

3. Line 210: (…32 C?) Remove the question mark and correct the symbol from oC to oC.

4. Line 211, 212, 216: Refer to the figure panel discussed. Make sure that the exact figures are mentioned wherever the data is discussed in-text throughout the manuscript.

5. Line 223: Include a picture plate for the treatment of seeds with AbamineSG similar to the pictures shown for treatment with Fluridone and ANT.

6. Line 243: The correct figure is not cited in this section. Fig S3 and Fig 1D seem interchanged.

7. The color code for the graph in Fig S3 is missing.

8. Line 242-249: Reorganize the data discussed in this section. The data discussed in this section is represented in Fig 1D, Fig S1, and Fig S3. The ordering of figures should match the order of the discussion. Preferably club the two supplementary figures. Also, the values in line 243 and line 244 do not match the graph shown.

9. The authors check the change in expression of LsM3K18A using qRT-PCR. Did they check the expression pattern of 18B and C and was there a reason why only 18A was selected and not 18B and C. I understand that leaves could be used to understand the transcriptional response of ABA but using the seed tissue would give a better picture. The author can use the same RNA as the one used for NCED4 expression analysis to also see the gene expression change of LsM3Ks.

10. Figure 2B is discussed later in the text than 2C. The order of figures should match the order of the in-text discussion. Check throughout the text.

11. The author should show the expression pattern of other NCEDs during the thermoinhibition of lettuce seeds.

12. Line 259: Delete (Lsat_1 …..)

13. Line 274: replace out with “our”

14. Divide picture plate and graphs into different subfigure in fig 3. Figure order …..

15. Mention color code for the graph in Figure 3A

16. Line 305: “ the seeds …after-ripened the longest” this might confuse the reader. Author can use something similar to “seeds stored for longer duration since ripening”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

pone.0315290.s006.docx (16KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 11;19(12):e0315290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315290.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Sep 2024

We have included a separate file that details our responses to the reviewers. Here it is again if needed here, too:

Response to reviewers

Academic editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We ensured that the document meets the requirements.

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This work was supported by NSF IOS grant 1656890."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have provided this in the cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors wish to express their gratitude to David Nelson for his generous donation of KAR1, and Tadao Asami for his generous donation of AbamineSG. This work was partially supported by NSF grant 1656890."

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The authors wish to express their gratitude to David Nelson for his generous donation of KAR1, and Tadao Asami for his generous donation of AbamineSG. This work was partially supported by NSF grant 1656890."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

This has been amended in the manuscript and added to the cover letter.

Reviewer #1: The article is on understanding dormancy in lettuce seeds. The authors studied ABA and ANT to investigate if it can mitigate the effects of dormancy and high temperatures on seed germination. The authors looked into many aspects including gene expression. The article needs to be rewritten as it lacks scientific coherency.

• Introduction is very general and incoherent. Many sentences seem out of place and lack references. Please rewrite the introduction and make it more scientific. The problem is not introduced properly, and many different aspects are discussed without providing proper context. Greatly recommend to rewrite introduction and make it less vague. ANT is also not properly discussed. For an improved structure, consider starting with dormancy and its importance in agriculture, then the crops that require it. Later move on to how is it regulated, then hormones, then regulators. Then go to examples. Discuss ANT and previous work done on ANT.

1. We have extensively rewritten the introduction to better align its narrative with the rest of the work; in hindsight, we can see that the original focus on seed dormancy distracted from the major points of the manuscript which are now better articulated. Thank you for helping us improve the manuscript.

• Make sure to correctly explain the relation between ANT, ABA and MAP kinase. Its very vague in introduction.

2. This has been clarified in the introduction.

• The writing is not up to the mark. Greatly recommend that this paper should be reviewed thoroughly. The presentation is weak and not coherent.

3. We have extensively revised the introduction, results, and discussion to improve clarity.

• In methods, please provide the conditions in which the Seeds of Lactuca sativa ‘Salinas’ were grown in a greenhouse.

4. We have included more details on growing conditions in the methods section.

• It is not clear from the methods is what tissue was used for gene expression study. If seeds were grown in dark for only 24 hours, was RNA extracted from seed? Was extracted from endosperm or radicle or cotyledon. Please explain the right procedure used.

5. Whole seeds. This has been added to the methods.

• Why 50 mg for seeds (considering seed was used) and 100 mg for leaf tissue for RNA extraction.

6. Seeds are a rich RNA source and required less material; we have noted this in the methods section

• Not much information was provided oh how the gene expression analysis. I recommend reading MIQE guidelines and provide as many details as possible.

7. We have added additional information on how the gene expression analysis was performed. RNA extraction, reverse transcription and qPCR was performed using kits according to the manufacturers recommendations. We have now noted this and any alterations to the protocols that were made.

• Why were ABA and ANT treatments not conducted on live plants. Why was detached and cut leaf was used. Once leaves or any tissues are cut the physiology changes. How does it represent true gene expression.

8. We used leaf discs because this is frequently employed in ABA-response studies and allows for efficient ABA uptake, which can be problematic in plants like lettuce with more pronounced cuticles. The primary goal of our qPCR experiments was to establish ANT’s anti-ABA activity, which this experiment demonstrates. We have modified the relevant methods section to make the rationale for this experimental choice clear.

• Were tissues snap frozen in liquid nitrogen before RNA extraction?

9. We used a Precellys 24 tissue lyser and Qiagen RNA isolation kit using their recommended procotol (this has now been clarified in the methods and we apologize for the omission). The Qiagen protocol harvested, placed in a lysis buffer, and extracted using disruption without prior freezing.

• Only UBC21 was used as reference gene for normalization. However, the current standard is to use at least two reference genes. Please explain.

10. We have previously characterized ANT’s effects in Arabidopsis and wheat. Our data showed that ANT is a potent blocker of cellular ABA responses that can reduce ABA-induced expression of target genes by ~ 10 - 20x, depending on the marker gene and experimental conditions (Vaidya et al. 2021). Given this context, the primary goal of our qRT-PCR experiments was to ensure that ANT possesses antagonist activity in lettuce, as expected based on our work in wheat and Arabidopsis. Indeed, our qRT-PCR data in the current manuscript demonstrate ~10-fold and ~100x reductions in the levels of two different ABA pathway genes after exogenous ABA or heat treatments (which triggers ABA biosynthesis and ABA-dependent thermoinhibition as per prior data by Argyris et al. 2008). Although it would be nice to have more reference genes, the data provided strongly support the conclusion that ANT antagonizes ABA responses in lettuce, as expected based on prior characterization of its effects in both monocots and dicots.

• Many sentences in the results should have been part of discussion. In results only the results should be mentioned.

11. We have moved several sentences from the results section to the discussion

Lines 51 – 52: Please elaborate more and add a reference.

12. We have extensively rewritten the introduction; this paragraph has been removed.

Lines 51 – 59: The paragraph is incoherent and general. Please rephrase to add clarity.

13. We agree. See our previous response above.

Lines 67 – 69: The above paragraph is a discussion about hormones and (DOG1) a regulator is discussed without a context. Seems out of place.

14. We agree. See our previous response above.

Line 127: Just curious why was DMSO used as control instead of DI water.

15. DMSO is the carrier solvent we use to solvate ANT and all other chemicals used in the paper. We have noted this in the methods and apologize for this omission. All experiments contained 0.1% vol/vol DMSO and differing concentrations of test compounds.

Lines 123 – 129: Is this method of ANT treatment based on previously reported methods? if so, please provide references.

16. Yes, the methods were adapted from Vaidya et al. 2021 where we did something similar; we have noted this in the text

Lines 156: What two tissue types were used ?

17. Seeds and leaves (we have noted this in the revised methods)

Lines 155 – 171: Very vague. Please rewrite.

18. We have updated this and provided additional information.

Lines 203 – 207: This should be part of the discussion.

19. This section was removed from the results and we have moved this section to the introduction.

Lines 203 – 219: The result section is not very clear. Please explain the inference drawn coherently.

20. This section has been revised to improve clarity.

Lines 247 – 249: This inference drawn is not accurate. It only shows ANT has effect on germination. How did you conclude ABA signaling was involved? This should be part of discussion not results.

21. We believe this is a reasonable conclusion given that ANT is a biochemically well-characterized pan-ABA receptor antagonist with pM binding affinity that blocks ABA responses in Arabidopsis, tomato, barley, and, as we show here in lettuce. However, we have modified the wording to improve precision.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript titled “The ABA receptor antagonist antabactin restores the germination of thermoinhibited lettuce seeds,” the authors have done an excellent work in understanding the molecular mechanism and solving the problem of seed vigor in lettuce. This work is directly applicable to the agriculture of lettuce and may be further extended to other commercial crops. I have the followings comments and recommendations:

Comments:

1. Figure 1A contains a picture plate, a graph, and the molecular structure of the chemical. Divide these into sub-figures. Nothing is mentioned about the molecule's chemical structure in the text or the figure legend. The authors should mention it in both places.

We added a pointer from the text to the figure; and modifed the figure labels.

2. Line 208: Mention both pictures and graphs in-text for readers to easily refer to the data discussed.

Added this to the text.

3. Line 210: (…32 C?) Remove the question mark and correct the symbol from oC to oC.

We checked and confirmed the experimental conditions and corrected as recommended.

4. Line 211, 212, 216: Refer to the figure panel discussed. Make sure that the exact figures are mentioned wherever the data is discussed in-text throughout the manuscript.

We clarified and updated the text with exact figure references.

5. Line 223: Include a picture plate for the treatment of seeds with AbamineSG similar to the pictures shown for treatment with Fluridone and ANT.

We have added this image in Figure S1 and referenced it in the Fig 1 caption.

6. Line 243: The correct figure is not cited in this section. Fig S3 and Fig 1D seem interchanged.

This has been corrected in the manuscript.

7. The color code for the graph in Fig S3 is missing.

This has been corrected in the figure.

8. Line 242-249: Reorganize the data discussed in this section. The data discussed in this section is represented in Fig 1D, Fig S1, and Fig S3. The ordering of figures should match the order of the discussion. Preferably club the two supplementary figures. Also, the values in line 243 and line 244 do not match the graph shown.

We have shifted the naming scheme and order of the supplemental figures to match the order they are discussed in the text. We incorrectly plotted the 48hr data in the supplemental figure, have changed it to reflect the values at 120 hours and apologize for the error. We chose to keep the two supplementary figures separate from one another since they are separate experiments that address different points.

9. The authors check the change in expression of LsM3K18A using qRT-PCR. Did they check the expression pattern of 18B and C and was there a reason why only 18A was selected and not 18B and C. I understand that leaves could be used to understand the transcriptional response of ABA but using the seed tissue would give a better picture. The author can use the same RNA as the one used for NCED4 expression analysis to also see the gene expression change of LsM3Ks.

Our primary goal was to develop a marker to confirm ANT’s efficacy in blocking ABA signaling. We did not analyze MAPKKK18B or MAPKKK18C expression, as MAPKKK18A showed a robust ABA response in leaves and served its purpose of providing this control (see our response to reviewer 1 question 10).

10. Figure 2B is discussed later in the text than 2C. The order of figures should match the order of the in-text discussion. Check throughout the text.

The order of Fig 2B and C has been switched as have references in the text. The order of Fig 3 was also corrected. The ordering of supplemental figures was also altered to correspond with order referenced in text.

11. The author should show the expression pattern of other NCEDs during the thermoinhibition of lettuce seeds.

LsNCED1 and LsNCED4 expression data was published previously (Argyris et al., 2008). LsNCED1 had low expression levels and LsNCED4 has been demonstrated as the key NCED that contributes to lettuce seed thermoinhibition and was therefore the focus of our experiments.

12. Line 259: Delete (Lsat_1 …..)

This has been removed and moved to the methods.

13. Line 274: replace out with “our”

This has been corrected in the manuscript.

14. Divide picture plate and graphs into different subfigure in fig 3. Figure order …..

Both of these items have been corrected.

15. Mention color code for the graph in Figure 3A

This has been added.

16. Line 305: “ the seeds …after-ripened the longest” this might confuse the reader. Author can use something similar to “seeds stored for longer duration since ripening”

This has been clarified in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0315290.s007.docx (13.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mohammad Irfan

24 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-20564R1The ABA receptor antagonist antabactin restores the germination of thermoinhibited lettuce seedsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cutler,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewer 2 still has a few minor concerns. Please address them appropriately.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Irfan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my concerns. All my comments are addressed. I have recommended to accept The ABA receptor antagonist antabactin restores the germination of thermoinhibited

lettuce seeds

Reviewer #2: I am happy with the edits made to the manuscript.

I have few minor recommendations for the manuscript:

1. Line 65-69: Too long statement. Make shorter statements and use proper punctuation for more clarity.

2. Line 81: replace "; it" with "which"

3. Italicize all scientific names

4. Methods: Gene expression assay: Mention if extracted RNA was treated for the removal of genomic DNA contamination.

5. Capitalize each word of "Crispr" to "CRISPR" throughout the text.

6. Line 423: change LCMS to LC-MS

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Dec 11;19(12):e0315290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315290.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Nov 2024

We made the minor grammatical and stylistic changes requested by reviewer 2.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (3).docx

Decision Letter 2

Mohammad Irfan

25 Nov 2024

Chemical Disruption of ABA Signaling Overcomes High-Temperature Inhibition of Seed Germination and Enhances Seed Priming Responses

PONE-D-24-20564R2

Dear Dr. Cutler,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Irfan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mohammad Irfan

2 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-20564R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cutler,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Irfan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. ANT and fluridone reverse thermoinhibition in L. sativa ‘Salinas’ while abamineSG has no effect.

    Germination was quantified for seeds imbibed on plates containing DMSO (mock-treated), 10 μM ANT, 10 μM fluridone or 100 μM AbamineSG and grown for 48h. Representative images are shown.

    (TIF)

    pone.0315290.s001.TIF (5.5MB, TIF)
    S2 Fig. ANT treatment restores germination at temperatures of up to 40°C.

    (A) Seeds treated with 10 μM ANT begin to germinate at temperatures of up to 40°C after 12048 hours of imbibition. (B) After 120 hours of heat treatment and 72 hours of recovery in dark at 25°C, seeds germinate.

    (TIF)

    pone.0315290.s002.TIF (12.7MB, TIF)
    S3 Fig. L. sativa ‘Salinas’ seeds are no longer viable at 45°C.

    Seeds were imbibed in dark in 10 μM ANT or mock treatment at 45°C for 120 hours before tetrazolium staining. These seeds were compared to mock-treated seeds grown in the dark for 24 hours before staining.

    (TIF)

    pone.0315290.s003.TIF (10.4MB, TIF)
    S4 Fig. ABA treatment does not significantly increase LsNCED4 expression.

    ABA and ABA + ANT treatments do not alter LsNCED4 expression (normalized to UBC21) measured by qRT-PCR of lettuce leaves in (DMSO) or 100 μM ABA or 100 μM ABA and 50 μM ANT in water (pairwise t test, p>0.05).

    (TIF)

    pone.0315290.s004.TIF (828KB, TIF)
    S1 Data. Raw data for all figures.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0315290.s005.xlsx (21.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    pone.0315290.s006.docx (16KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0315290.s007.docx (13.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (3).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data presented can be found in supplementalData.xlsx.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES