Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Feb 12;15(2):e0228675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228675

Resistance associated metabolite profiling of Aspergillus leaf spot in cotton through non-targeted metabolomics

Maria Khizar 1, Jianxin Shi 2, Sadia Saleem 1, Fiza Liaquat 3, Muhammad Ashraf 2, Sadia Latif 1, Urooj Haroon 1, Syed Waqas Hassan 4, Shafiq ur Rehman 5, Hassan Javed Chaudhary 1, Umar Masood Quraishi 1, Muhammad Farooq Hussain Munis 1,*
Editor: Kandasamy Ulaganathan6
PMCID: PMC7015376  PMID: 32049975

Abstract

Aspergillus tubingensis is an important pathogen of economically important crops. Different biotic stresses strongly influence the balance of metabolites in plants. The aim of this study was to understand the function and response of resistance associated metabolites which, in turn are involved in many secondary metabolomics pathways to influence defense mechanism of cotton plant. Analysis of non-targeted metabolomics using ultra high performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) revealed abundant accumulation of key metabolites including flavonoids, phenylpropanoids, terpenoids, fatty acids and carbohydrates, in response to leaf spot of cotton. The principal component analysis (PCA), orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) score plots illustrated the evidences of variation between two varieties of cotton under mock and pathogen inoculated treatments. Primary metabolism was affected by the up regulation of pyruvate and malate and by the accumulation of carbohydrates like cellobiose and inulobiose. Among 241 resistance related (RR) metabolites, 18 were identified as resistance related constitutive (RRC) and 223 as resistance related induced (RRI) metabolites. Several RRI metabolites, identified in the present study were the precursors for many secondary metabolic pathways. These included phenylpropanoids (stilbenes and furanocoumarin), flavonoids (phlorizin and kaempferol), alkaloids (indolizine and acetylcorynoline) and terpenoids (azelaic acid and oleanolic acid). Our results demonstrated that secondary metabolism, primary metabolism and energy metabolism were more active in resistant cultivar, as compared to sensitive cultivar. Differential protein and fatty acid metabolism was also depicted in both cultivars. Accumulation of these defense related metabolites in resistant cotton cultivar and their suppression in susceptible cotton cultivar revealed the reason of their respective tolerance and susceptibility against A. tubingensis.

Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a major fiber and cash crop and it is termed as “silver fiber” in different parts of the world. Pakistan ranks 4th among all cotton producing countries and its production plays key role in the economy of Pakistan [1]. There are about 50 species of cotton and four of them are cultivated, worldwide [2]. Cotton is a shrub and it is native to tropical and subtropical regions around the world, including America and Africa [3]. Eighty-seven percent of total cotton is grown in developing countries. In addition to fiber, cotton seed offers a supplemental income and it is a source of protein for human and animal nutrition. G. hirsutum is the most commonly grown cotton species and it is native to Mexico and Central America [4]. Cross breeding between diverse upland varieties helped the introduction of upland cotton in different areas of the world [5]. G. hirsutum is a natural allotetraploid species, that possibly rose from interspecific hybridization between ancestral diploid species, having an A-like genome (present day G. arboreum) and a D-like genome (present day G. raimondii) [6]. The upland form of G. hirsutum and its derived varieties are the backbone of the worldwide textile industry [7].

Cotton crop is affected by several biotic and abiotic stresses. In Pakistan, insect attack is the main cause of low crop yield [8]. Different fungal, bacterial, viral and pest diseases also affect the productivity of cotton plant, severely. Key fungal diseases of cotton include anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum, Ascochyta blight caused by Ascochyta gossypii, Charcoal rot caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum, and leaf spot caused by Altenaria spp, and Rhizoctonia solani [3]. In recent years, leaf spot of cotton has also been reported to be caused by Corynespora cassiicola [9] and Curvularia verruculosa [10]. Among different Aspergillus species, A. tubingensis is a black filamentous species [11]. Mostly, A. tubingensis strain is misidentified as A. niger [12]. A. tubingensis has been reported to cause leaf spot disease of Jatropha curcas [13]. A. tubingensis is also a causal agent of bunch rot of shine muscat grape [14].

Metabolomics is a post-genomics tool to reveal physiological and biochemical responses of host under biotic and abiotic stresses [15]. Non-targeted metabolomics has been applied to interpret the host biochemical mechanism of quantitative resistance in crop plants against many pathogens [16]. Metabolomics profiling helps scientists to draw useful conclusions about the defense mechanism of commercially important crops. In wheat, a non-targeted metabolic profiling of wheat rachis revealed thickening of cell walls, due to the deposition of hydroxycinnamic acid amides (HCAAs) [17]. Accumulation of numerous RR metabolites has been reported as the reason of the growth inhibition of F. graminearum [18]. Non-targeted metabolic profiling has also been documented in Solanaceous crops including tobacco and potato. Host defensive phenylpropanoids (HCAAs) and fatty acids were induced in tobacco leaves under compatible interaction with Phytophthora parasitica [19]. Metabolic profiling of potato leaves infected with Phytopthora infestans revealed the induction of phenylalanine, tyrosine, shikimic acid, and benzoic acid, which are precursor metabolites for many defense related secondary metabolites [20]. Metabolomics profiling of cotton reveals that different species of genus Gossypium have different quantities of glycosides, such as, rhamnoglucosides are more abundant in G. hirsutum but are found in trace amounts in G. barbadense whereas kaempferol-3-glucoside and quercetin-7-glycosides are widely present in G. barbadense, in comparison to G. hirsutum [21]. Quercitin, kaempferol, bhenic acid, quercetin-3-rhamnoglucoside, catechin, epicatechin, scopoletin, gallocatechin, cinnamic acid, gossypol and stigmasterol are the known naturally occurring secondary metabolites of G. hirsutum [4]. The leaves of G. hirsutum contain 19 flavonoids spanning five different classes however there are no reports of flavones and chalcones or aurones from G. hirsutum. Higher concentrations of catechin, gallocatechin and isoquercitrin, found in young cotton leaves, result in halted mycelia growth [22].

The objectives of current study were to compare variation in metabolomics profiling of two cotton varieties which were subjected to Aspergillus leaf spot and to identify RR metabolites which were responsible for imparting resistance in tolerant variety.

Materials and methods

Plant material and growth conditions

Cotton seeds of susceptible cultivar (CIM-573) and resistant cultivar (NIA-Sadori) were obtained from Central Cotton Research Institute (CCRI), Multan and Nuclear Institute of Agricultural Science, Tandojaam, Pakistan, respectively. CIM-573 has been reported susceptible to bacterial leaf blight of cotton [23], while NIA-Sadori is known to exhibit resistance against biotic stresses [24].

Soil was prepared by mixing equal proportions of peat moss and clay (1:1 ratio). Healthy cotton seeds were surface sterilized using 2% sodium hypochlorite solution for 3 min and washed with distilled water, twice. These seeds were soaked overnight in double distilled water to increase germination potential of seeds [25]. Seeds were sown in 12 inch pots (4 seeds per pot) under greenhouse conditions at 32 °C, 70% relative humidity and 16/8 h of light/dark photoperiod for 5 weeks. Plants were fertilized fortnightly with 150 mL solution containing 20–20–20 NPK trace elements.

Inoculum preparation and point-inoculation

A. tubingensis was grown on potato dextrose agar (PDA) media at 28 °C, under dark conditions. After 5 days of incubation, front and back sides of inoculated petri plates were carefully observed to see the morphology of mycelia. Microscopic study of growing mycelia was also performed. For the production of virulent spores, pathogen was inoculated on surface-sterilized leaves and placed on agar nutrient media for 3–4 days, at 25 °C. Fungal mycelium, grown on media plates were scraped using cultural loop to harvest sporangia and grown in czapek broth medium. Spores were filtered through double layer of cheesecloth and the spore concentration was adjusted to 1×105 mL−1, using haemocytometer. Fully grown leaves of 5 to 7 week-old cotton plants were point inoculated with 20 μL of spore suspension (designated as inoculated plants) and sterile water (designated as mock plants). Four days post inoculation (dpi), leaves of both varieties along with their biological replicates containing inoculation site were cut, using a pair of sterile scissors, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C, until further use.

Experimental design

The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block (RCB) design. The experiment was consisting of four treatments: RT (resistant variety treated with pathogen), RM (resistant variety with mock treatment), ST (susceptible variety treated with pathogen), and SM (susceptible variety with mock treatment). Each treatment consisted of four biological replicates and the entire experiment was repeated three times, over a time interval of 3–4 days.

Disease severity assessment

The experimental units were consisting of 12 leaves from at least three plants per replicate. The necrotic lesion diameter was measured using graph method at 4 dpi to calculate area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC).

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-Q TOF-MS)

For this purpose, 80 mg of each leaf sample was weighed and transferred to Eppendorf tube. As internal standard, 20 μL of 2-chloro-l-phenylalanine (0.3 mg/mL methanol) and 1 mL mixture of methanol and water (7:3 v/v) were added to each sample and placed at -80 °C, for 2 min. Two small steel balls (pre-cooled at ‒20 °C, for 2 min) were added and grinded at 60 Hz for 2 min. The material was ultra-sonicated for 30 min and allowed to stand at ‒20 °C for 20 min. At 4 °C, these samples were centrifuged for 10 min at 13000 rpm. The supernatant (200 μL) was pipetted out and filtered using 0.22 μm organic phase pinhole filter. Samples were transferred to LC injection vials and stored at ‒80 °C, until LC-MS analysis. Quality control (QC) samples were prepared by mixing equal aliquots of all samples and each QC volume was the same as the sample. All extraction reagents were pre-cooled at -20 °C before use.

Liquid chromatography system consisting of Waters ACQUITY UPLC I-Class system (Waters Corporation, Milford, USA) coupled with VION IMS QTOF Mass spectrometer (Waters Corporation, Milford, USA) was used to analyze the metabolic profiling in both ESI positive and ESI negative ion modes. Chromatographic conditions included a column ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 of 100 mm × 2.1 mm × 1.7 um. Column temperature was maintained at 45 °C. The mobile phase was comprised of both water and acetonitrile, containing 0.1% formic acid. Samples were kept at 4 °C during analysis. Flow rate was maintained at 0.4 mL min-1 and injection volume was set at 2 μL. Mass spectrometry conditions included an ion source. Signal acquisition for mass spectrometry was accomplished using positive and negative ion scanning mode. Resolution of mass was set at 50–1000 amu with a scan time of 0.1 s and scan type was MSE in centroid mode. Data acquisition was performed in full scan mode (m/z ranges from 50 to 1000 amu), combined with MSE centroid mode, including 2 independent scans with different collision energies (CE), alternatively acquired during the run. Parameters of high resolution mass spectrometry included a low-energy scan (CE 4eV) and a high-energy scan (CE ramp 20-35eV) to fragment the ions. Argon (99.999%) was used as collision-induced dissociation gas. ESI conditions comprised of scan rate 0.2 s/scan, capillary voltage 2 kV (negative mode) and 3 kV (positive mode), reference capillary voltage 2.5 kV, cone voltage 40 V, source offset 80 V, source temperature 120 °C, desolvation gas temperature 450 °C, desolvation gas flow 900 L/h and cone gas flow 50 L/h. Nitrogen (>99.5%) was employed as desolvation and cone gas. The QCs were injected at regular intervals throughout the analytical run to provide a set of data from which repeatability could be assessed.

Data preprocessing

UNIFI 1.8.1 Software was used for the collection of raw data (Waters Corporation, Milford, USA). The acquired LC-MS raw data were analyzed by the progenesis QI software (Waters Corporation, Milford, USA). Precursor tolerance was set as 5 ppm, product tolerance was set as 10 ppm and retention time (RT) tolerance was set at 0.02 min. Internal standard detection parameters were deselected for peak RT alignment and isotopic peaks were excluded for analysis. Noise elimination level was set at 10.00; minimum intensity was set to 15% of base peak intensity. The Excel file was obtained with three dimension data sets including m/z. Peak RT, peak intensities and RT–m/z pairs were used as the identifier for each ion. The resulting matrix was further reduced by removing any peaks with missing value (ion intensity = 0), in more than 60% samples. The internal standard was used for data QC (reproducibility). Compounds were identified on the basis of accurate mass, secondary fragmentation and isotopic distribution, using the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), Lipidmaps 2.3 and the METLIN database. The positive and negative ion data were combined into one data matrix table containing all the information that could be used for analysis. The Pathway Analysis was performed on significantly altered known metabolites by using Arabidopsis thaliana as the pathway library to associate the biological functions of identified metabolites to different pathways. Metabolomics data was subjected to Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG; http://www.genome.jp/kegg).

Statistical analysis

For the identification of metabolites showing differential response, they were subjected to statistical analysis using Progenesis IQ software. The data matrix was imported into the SIMCA software package 14.0 (Umetrics, Umeå, Sweden), using unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA), to observe the overall distribution between samples and stability of the entire analysis process. To distinguish the overall differences in metabolic profiles between groups and to find differential metabolites between groups, orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) were used. In our study, default 7-round cross-validation was applied with 1/7th of the samples being excluded from the mathematical model in each round, in order to guard against over fitting. Data was subjected to two-tailed Student’s t test and fold change analysis. The volcano plot was used to visualize p-value and fold change value, which is useful for screening differential metabolites.

A combination of multidimensional analysis and single-dimensional analysis was used to screen differential metabolites between groups. The differential metabolites were selected on the basis of the combination of a statistically significant threshold of variable influence on projection (VIP) values, obtained from the OPLS- DA model and p values from a two-tailed Student’s t test on the normalized peak areas. Metabolites with VIP values larger than 1.0 and p values less than 0.05 were considered as differential metabolites. Wherein, the change factor (fold change) was the ratio of the average content of metabolites in two groups and the mass error cut-off was set at <5ppm.

For the identification of differential metabolites among four datasets, Venn diagram was constructed using R software. A fold change threshold of FC >1 was applied to the significant metabolites (DEGS). Heat maps were constructed using MetaboAnalyst 3.0 software. (www.metaboanalyst.ca).

Results

Disease severity

Inoculated cotton leaves were examined for disease severity after 4 days of inoculation. The resistant variety exhibited smaller leaf spots of about 2 mm average size and these spots didn’t spread further (Figs 1A and 2). Susceptible variety revealed leaf spots of 1.4 cm average size, rapidly, followed by necrosis. Leaf spots spread on the entire leaves, after 3 to 4 days of inoculation. Initially, leaf spot symptoms appeared along the veins of leaves, forming small brownish irregular spots, which gradually increases in size and number and eventually lead to necrosis. Brown spots were more prevalent in the middle of the leaf (Fig 1B). These symptoms were similar to already reported Aspergillus leaf spot [13, 26]. No disease was observed in mock inoculated leaves of both varieties (Fig 1C and 1D).

Fig 1. Cotton leaf spot caused by A. tubingensis.

Fig 1

(A) NIA- Sadori (resistant variety) (B) CIM-573 (susceptible variety) (C) NIA-Sadori (mock inoculated) (D) CIM-573 (mock inoculated).

Fig 2. Measurement of disease severity in V1 = CIM-573 variety and V2 = NIA-Sadori variety.

Fig 2

Metabolite profiling in response to A. tubingensis

Data was obtained in the form of LCMS chromatograms, which are the functions of their retention time and mass to charge ratio. Out of 20202 original peaks for positive ion sample, 17196 peaks were reserved, indicating a yield of 85.13%. Similarly, out of 17713 original peaks for negative ion sample, 15477 peaks were reserved, indicating a yield of 87.38%. As a result of metabolomics by untargeted LCMS, 32674 peaks were obtained; out of which 7821 metabolites were putatively identified.

Statistical analysis

Unprocessed data was subjected to multivariate and univariate analysis to confirm the stability and repetition of our experimental work. Multivariate statistical analysis revealed noticeable differences between the samples under mock treatment (RM and SM) and pathogen inoculated treatment (RT and ST). Principle Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrated variance between the samples. Each variety formed its own cluster of metabolites with slight overlapping with each other. PC1 and PC2 showed variance of 63% and 16%, respectively (Fig 3A and 3B). OPLS data analysis indicated the variation between samples of mock and inoculated treatment. The OPLS-DA score plots illustrated the evidences of variation between two varieties of cotton under mock and pathogen inoculated treatments (Fig 4). The PLSDA score plots of our study verified the results of RM vs. SM and RM vs. RT, obtained through PCA. Negative relationship of RT and ST metabolites indicated disease tolerance and susceptibility of resistant and susceptible cultivars, respectively (Fig 5).

Fig 3. Principal Component analysis (A) and 2D Scores plot (B) in cotton leaves under control (mock) and treated (pathogen inoculated) conditions.

Fig 3

Mock and treated samples formed separate groups, indicating an altered state of metabolite levels in the leaves. Slight overlapping with each other was also observed.

Fig 4. OPLS-DA plots of four data sets: Resistant Mock vs Susceptible Mock, Resistant Treated vs Susceptible Treated, Susceptible Mock vs Susceptible Treated, Resistant Treated vs Resistant Mock.

Fig 4

Fig 5. PLS-DA of four data sets: Resistant Mock vs Susceptible Mock, Resistant Treated vs Susceptible Treated, Susceptible Mock vs Susceptible Treated, Resistant Treated vs Resistant Mock.

Fig 5

For univariate analysis, data was subjected to fold change analysis. Positive and negative values indicated up regulated and down regulated metabolites, respectively. For the identification of significant metabolites, Student’s t-test was applied to the data. Volcano plots illustrated highly significant metabolites having lower p-values within four datasets i.e. RM vs. SM, RT vs. ST, RT vs. RM and ST vs. SM. Volcano map revealed up and down regulation of metabolites (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Volcano maps of four data sets: Resistant Mock vs Susceptible Mock, Resistant Treated vs Susceptible Treated, Susceptible Mock vs Susceptible Treated, Resistant Treated vs Resistant Mock.

Fig 6

Differential metabolite screening

Statistical analysis revealed the differential response of about 873 metabolites. Out of these, 528 metabolites were found as primary metabolites, secondary metabolites, membrane lipids and various other small organic compounds. Venn diagram demonstrated differential metabolites between different data sets. Overlapping section of Venn diagram exhibited 12 metabolites, common in all four datasets (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Venn diagram of differential metabolites in cotton leaf, after pathogen infection.

Fig 7

Metabolite profiling of cotton varying in leaf spot resistance

Resistance related (RR) metabolites were identified in the resistant variety to explore the basis of resistance. RR metabolites were further divided into two categories i.e. Resistance related constitutive (RRC) and Resistance related induced (RRI) metabolites. By applying FC >1 cut-off, 241 metabolites were found to be RR metabolites. Out of these, 18 metabolites were identified as RRC (S1 Table) and 223 were observed as RRI metabolites (S2 Table). Most of these RR metabolites exhibited higher values of fold change and were found abundantly in the resistant cultivar NIA-Sadori, as compared to the susceptible cultivar CIM-573. Identification and classification of metabolites was performed from Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), Lipids Map and METLIN Database. Metabolites which were specifically found interfering with plant physiology mainly belonged to carbohydrates, amino acids, flavonoids, phenylpropanoid, alkaloids, terpenoids, steroids, fatty acids and organic acids (Table 1). Heat maps of RRC and RRI metabolites were drawn using MetaboAnalyst (Figs 8 and 9).

Table 1. List of few significantly important metabolites (RRI and RRC) with their names, molecular formula (MF), compound type, fold change (FC) and genomes identifier number (KEGG ID/HMDB ID) in cotton leaves under control and pathogen inoculated conditions.

Metabolite Name KEGG/HMDB ID Molecular Formula Compound Type Fold changes in SMRM RTST STSM RTRM
Glutathione C00051 C10H17N3O6S Amino acid 2.7 3.46
Pyruvic acid C00022 C3H4O3 Organic acid 4.68
L-Malic acid C00149 C4H6O5 Organic acid 3.81
Prostaglandin C00584 C23H38O8 Fatty acyls 0.432 3.94 0.254 2.211
Quercitin C00389 C15H10O7 Flavonoids 1.50
L-Asparagine C00152 C4H8N2O3 Amino acid 0.17 60.96
Phosphocholine (PC) C00588 C5H14NO4P Phospholipid 0.566 3.45 2.151
Petunidin C08727 C16H13ClO7 Flavonoid 0.50
(-)-Epigallocatechin C12136 C15H14O7 Flavonoid 0.48
(+)-Gallocatechin C12127 C15H14O7 Flavonoid 2.04 0.477
Glycyrol C16968 C21H18O6 Isoflavonoid 3.5 0.3
Aloinoside B C17780 C27H32O13 Benzenoid 3.05 0.36
Phlorizin C01604 C21H24O10 Flavonoid 3.39 0.24
Aspidofractine C09040 C22H26N2O3 Alkaloid 5.83 0.31
Asparagoside A C08886 C33H54O8 Steroid 3.2 0.31
Dioscin C08897 C45H72O16 Steroid 10.5 0.12 1.96
Bis(glutathionyl)spermine C16563 C30H56N10O10S2 Amino acid 0.25
Spinasaponin A C08984 C42H66O14 Terpenoid 0.44 4.7 0.17 1.88
L-Fucose C01019 C6H12O5 Sugar 0.466
Quercetin 3-O-glucoside C05623 C21H20O12 Flavonoid 1.64
Orientin C10114 C21H20O11 Flavonoid 1.88
Cellobiose C00185 C12H22O11 Sugar 3.4
Chrosimate C00251 C10H10O6 Organic acid 0.4
Baptifoline C10755 C15H20N2O2 Alkaloid 0.39
Citramalic acid C00815 C5H8O5 Fatty acid 1.73
Tragopogonsaponin C HMDB0037912 C51H72O17 Terpenoid 6.98
Azl HMDB0031775 C48H74O18 Terpenoid 6.81 0.21 2.28
Flazine HMDB0033459 C17H12N2O4 Alkaloid 2.10 0.47
Benzosimuline HMDB0031930 C20H19NO2 Alkaloid 2.32
Methionyl-Phenylalanine HMDB0028980 C14H20N2O3S Amino acid 2.30 0.32
Acetylcorinoline 73548 C23H23NO6 Alkaloid 2.30 0.37
Torvoside F HMDB0041531 C45H74O18 Steroid 8.95 0.2 2.33
Alliofuroside A HMDB0041051 C44H72O18 Steroid 10.98
Olitorin HMDB0034361 C35H52O14 Steroid 2.4
Cyclopassifloside VII HMDB003 C37H62O13 Terpenoid 2.44 0.36
Oroselone HMDB0033925 C14H10O3 Phenylpropanoid 2.4
Theaflavin HMDB0005788 C29H24O12 Flavonoid 1.8 0.53
Wampetin HMDB0030080 C21H18O6 Phenylpropanoid 3.6 0.2
Tuberoside D HMDB0034304 C45H74O17 Steroid 3.6
Torvoside C HMDB0029623 C39H64O13 Steroid 0.33 3.62 0.24 2.62
Camelliagenin B 90000 C30H48O5 Terpenoid 5.2
Launobine HMDB0030217 C18H17NO4 Alkaloid 5.0
Goyaglycoside c HMDB0038349 C38H62O9 Steroid 4.7
Floribundoside HMDB0033739 C21H22O10 Flavonoid 4.5
Pisumoside B HMDB0037125 C32H52O16 Terpenoid 4.4
Bayogenin 53775 C30H48O5 Terpenoid 4.2
Patuletin C10118 C16H12O8 Flavonoid 4.1
Divanillyltetrahydrofuran ferulate HMDB0032730 C30H32O8 Phenylpropanoid 4.0
Dihydropanaxacol HMDB0032675 C17H28O3 Flavonoid 3.3
N-a-Acetyl-L-arginine HMDB0004620 C8H16N4O3 Amino acid 2.1
Pitheduloside I HMDB0034036 C30H48O5 Terpenoid 2.9
Asparaginyl-Isoleucine HMDB0028734 C10H19N3O4 Amino acid 2.2
Argenteane HMDB0039454 C40H46O8 Lignin 2.6
4-Hydroxynonenal HMDB0036332 C9H16O2 Fatty acid 3.1
Inulobiose C01711 C12H22O11 Sugar 3.18
Isolicopyranocoumarin HMDB0035479 C21H20O7 Flavonoid 3.1
Hoduloside III HMDB0039072 C47H76O17 Terpenoid 3.3
Molludistin 2''-rhamnoside HMDB0037418 C27H30O13 Flavonoid 3.4
alpha-Spinasterol 3-glucoside HMDB0033775 C35H58O6 Steroid 3.6
4'-Hydroxyacetophenone 4'-[4hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxybenzoyl(->5)-apiosyl-(1->2)-glucoside] HMDB0036332 C28H34O15 Tannin 3.7
Myricetin 3-[glucosyl-(1->2)rhamnoside] 7-[rhamnosyl-(1>2)-glucoside] HMDB0038823 C39H50O26 Flavonoid 4.00
Nelumboside (RRC) HMDB0038464 C27H28O18 Flavonoid 3.2
Cyclotricuspidoside C (RRC) HMDB0033636 C43H72O17 Terpenoid 2.4
Aromadendrin (RRC) C00974 C15H12O6 Flavonoid 1.8 0.6
Stigmasterol (RRC) C05442 C29H48O Fatty acid 1.4 0.67
Delta 2- THA (δ2-tetracosahexaenoic acid) (RRC) LMFA01030852 C24H34O2 Fatty acid 1.12
(3b,9R)-5-Megastigmene-3,9-diol 9-[apiosyl-(1->6)glucoside] (RRC) HMDB0038327 C24H42O11 Fatty acid 1.95
Elaterinide (RRC) HMDB0035893 C38H54O13 Steroid 1.9
2,2,4,4,-Tetramethyl-6-(1-oxopropyl)-1,3,5cyclohexanetrione HMDB0033191 C13H18O4 Terpenoid 1.08
L-Glutamate C00025 C5H9NO4 Amino acid 2.6 2.5
L-Aspartic acid C00049 C4H7NO4 Amino acid 2.5
N2-Fructopyranosylarginine HMDB0041541 C12H24N4O7 Amino acid 26.9
Cinnzeylanol HMDB0036010 C20H32O7 Terpenoid 15.6 2.8
Calenduloside B HMDB0039413 C48H78O18 Terpenoid 14.1 0.08
(-)-Dioxybrassinin HMDB0038634 C11H12N2O2S2 Amino acid 9.6
Dihydrowyerone HMDB0039493 C14H14O4 Fatty acid 1.2 0.6 0.6
N-a-acetylcitrulline HMDB000856 C8H15N3O4 Amino acid 2.1 0.4
Raphanusamic acid HMDB0041280 C4H5NO2S2 Amino acid 0.3
Epirosmonol HMDB0035812 C20H26O5 Terpenoid 2.8
Arjunolic acid HMDB0034502 C30H48O5 Terpenoid 1.9
Oleanolic acid HMDB0036357 C41H66O12 Terpenoid 2.8 7.3 0.2
Cephradione A HMDB0034364 C18H11NO4 Alkaloid 1.7 0.5

Where SMRM (Susceptible mock inoculated, Resistant mock inoculated) RTST (Resistant treated and Susceptible treated) STSM (Susceptible treated and mock inoculated) RTRM (Resistant treated and mock inoculated)

Compound Database ID = HMDB: Human Metabolome Database, LMGP and LMFA: LIPID MAPS, Number: METLIN.

RRI: RT vs ST, RT vs RM, ST vs SM.

RRC: RM vs SM

Fig 8. Hierarchial clustering showing heat map of RRC metabolites with fold change > 1 in the Mock treatments (R_Mock vs. S_Mock) and their response in other treatments generated using Metaboanalyst software.

Fig 8

Red and green colors represent up and down regulation, respectively. Columns are exhibiting samples and rows are exhibiting metabolites here.

Fig 9. Hierarchial clustering showing heat map of top 60 RRI metabolites of resistant and susceptible varieties, induced by the infection of A. tubingensis, generated using Metaboanalyst software.

Fig 9

Red and green colors represent up and down regulation, respectively. Columns are presenting samples and rows are exhibiting metabolites here. Clustering is evident from the shown dendrograms.

Changes in plant metabolic pathways using KEGG pathway analysis

The Pathway Analysis was performed on significantly altered known metabolites by using A. thaliana as the pathway library to associate the biological functions of identified metabolites to different pathways. Three pathways which were common in both varieties (NIA-Sadori and CIM-573) were Alanine, aspartate, glutamate metabolism, glutathione metabolism and Aminoayl tRNA biosynthesis. Both primary and secondary metabolic pathways were disturbed in cotton leaves upon infection with pathogen. Pathways which were significantly altered in resistant variety upon inoculation were citrate cycle, pyruvate metabolism, flavonoid, glyoxylate and dicarboxylate, Biosynthesis of alkaloids, flavone and flavonol biosynthesis, arginine and proline metabolism, histidine metabolism, nitrogen metabolism and energy metabolism. While in susceptible cultivar, arachidonic acid, cyanoamino acid and glycerophospholipid metabolism pathways were changed (Table 2).

Table 2. Pathway ID and names, total metabolites involved in those pathways, metabolites significantly accumulated in present study and false discovery rate (FDR) in cotton leaves of resistant and susceptible variety, identified by pathway analysis using Arabidopsis thaliana as the pathway library.

ID Annotation Pathway Annotation In set In background Present in FDR correction
ath00940 Flavonoid biosynthesis 2 68 SM ST,RT ST, RM SM 5.1
ath00250 Alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism 3 24 RT ST, RM RT, SM ST 1.1
ath00910 Nitrogen metabolism 1 26 RM RT, RT ST 1.1
ath00460 Cyanoamino acid metabolism 1 41 SM ST 1.1
ath00564 Glycerophospholipid metabolism 1 46 SM ST 1.1
ath00970 Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis 1 75 RM RT, SM ST 1.4
ath00590 Arachidonic acid metabolism 1 75 SM ST 1.4
ath00480 Glutathione metabolism 4 38 RT ST, SM ST, RM SM, RM RT 1.3
ath001064 Biosynthesis of alkaloids derived from ornithine, lysine and nicotinic acid 3 67 RT ST 4.0
ath00020 Citrate cycle (TCA cycle) 2 20 RT ST 4.0
ath00710 Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms 2 23 RT ST, RM RT 4.3
ath00660 C5-Branched dibasic acid metabolism 2 32 RT ST 4.9
ath00620 Pyruvate metabolism 2 32 RT ST 2.9
ath00944 Flavone and flavonol biosynthesis 2 33 RT ST 4.9
ath00650 Butanoate metabolism 2 40 RT ST 5.9
ath00630 Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism 2 44 RT ST 6.6
ath0040 Pentose and glucuronate interconversions 2 53 RT ST 7.6
ath00270 Cysteine and methionine metabolism 2 56 RM RT, RT ST 7.6
ath003330 Arginine and proline metabolism 2 82 RT ST, RM RT 1.3
ath00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism 3 126 RM RT, RT ST 6.8
ath00340 Histidine metabolism 2 44 RM SM, RM RT 6.9
ath00260 Glycine,serine and Threonne metabolism 2 49 RM RT 7.1
ath01062 Biosynthesis of terpenoids and steroids 2 98 RM SM 1.4

Discussion

In this experiment, based on UPLC Q-Tof technology platform, combined with QI metabolomics data processing software, metabolic profile analysis was performed on cotton varieties. The quality control results showed that the QC samples were gathered together, which indicates the stability and reliability of the whole operation and the experimental platform. Differences in metabolic profiles obtained in the experiments reflect biological differences between samples. Multivariate statistical analysis and t-test were used to screen differential metabolites. Our results showed that there were significant differences in metabolites in different treatment groups. By analyzing diverse metabolome of two cotton varieties (resistant NIA-Sadori and susceptible CIM- 573), under mock treated and pathogen infected conditions, significant accumulation of key metabolites were observed. Identified significant important metabolites mainly belonged to carbohydrates, fatty acids, steroids, terpenoids, flavonoids, alkaloids, phenylpropanoids, amino acids and organic acids.

Higher accumulation of sugars under pathogen infection was observed in this study, which clearly shows the potential for an advanced tolerance during biotic stress in cotton plant. The extended level of carbohydrates like Inulobiose in resistant variety is evident in evading stress. Inulobiose has been reported for its antioxidant activity in chicory [27]. Organic acids like L-Malic acid and Pyruvic acid were highly accumulated in resistant cultivar, in response to pathogen inoculation. Up-regulation of primary metabolism plays a role in signal transduction during stress and modulates the defense response. Pyruvic acid is involved in the induction of hypersensitive response (HR) in plants, leading to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and in turn, up-regulation of pathogenesis related (PR) proteins [28]. L-Malic acid is an intermediate of TCA (tricarboxylic acid) cycle and its efflux from plant roots acts as a signal for recruiting beneficial rhizobacteria [29]. The accumulation of some organic acids including citric acid could contribute to greater capacity of some genotype of cotton to manage drought stress [30].

Amino acids with relative higher accumulation in resistant cultivar included Dioxibrassinin, N2-Fructopyranosylarginine, Glutathione and L-Glutamate. Dioxibrassinin is a phytoalexin that has been reported for its antimicrobial activity against Bipolaris leersiae [31]. N2-Fructopyranosylarginine has been described to possess antioxidant properties [32]. Glutathione shows antioxidant activity in plants and regulates the responses of plants to various biotic and abiotic stresses by producing phytoalexins [33]. L-Glutamate plays a key role in amino acid metabolism and signaling during stress [34]. In this study, N-arachidonoyl alanine, L-Aspartic acid, Dihydrowyerone acid and 4-Hydroxynonenal were abundantly accumulated fatty acids in resistant cultivar. N-arachidonoyl alanine has been identified as RR metabolite in wheat for inducing Fusarium head blight (FHB) resistance by acting as physical barriers as well as antimicrobial agents [35]. L-Aspartic acid or aspartate leads to the production of amino acids like asparagine which is employed for nitrogen storage in plants [36]. Dihydrowyerone acid is a phytoalexin, [37] and 4-Hydroxynonenal is an end product of lipid peroxidation [38]. Stigmasterol was also accumulated in mock inoculated resistant variety, which is an intrinsically existing secondary compound in cotton plant [4]. Elevated levels of fatty acids in resistant cultivar under stress conditions are in accordance with previous findings which suggest their role in signal transduction [39].

Primary metabolism has also been reported to be up regulated during plant-pathogen interaction. This up regulation of primary metabolic pathways results in cascades of signal transduction in plants under stress. This signaling helps to modulate defense related responses [28]. Plants having higher secondary metabolite content are generally considered to be more resistant against stresses [40]. In this study, various secondary metabolites (phenylpropanoids) including diarylheptanoids, stilbenes, wampetin and oroselone exhibited elevated accumulation in resistant cultivar. Phenylpropanoids are known for their antioxidant properties [41]. In our study, several phytoalexins like Oroselone (furanocoumarin) were induced abundantly in tolerant cotton cultivar and could be considered as potential defense against A. niger. Different flavonoids like phlorizin, orientin, quercetin, kaempferol and isoflavanoids were also induced abundantly after pathogen inoculation in resistant cultivar. These have been proposed to be involved in disease resistance against various pathogens [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Steroids do not have role in plant growth and are primarily involved in defense response of plants against several types of stresses. In resistant variety, high accumulation of steroidal glycosides like Melongoside O, Asparagoside D and A, Alliofuroside A, Sarasapogenin, Schidigerasaponin (F2 and C2), Tuberosides, Torvonin, Alphaspinasterol 3-glucoside and Olitorin suggest their role in plant defense and response to wounding [48]. Resistant cultivar infected with pathogen also depicted higher accumulation of alkaloids including 7-Hydroxydehydroglaucine, Indolizine, Benzosimuline, Acetylcorynoline, Flazine, Benzosimuline and Cepharadione A. These compounds have been reported for their antifungal activities [49, 50, 51, 52]. In this study, numerous membrane glycerolipids including several PE (Phosphatidylethanolamine), PC (Phosphatidylcholine), PI (Phosphatidylinositol), PA (Phosphatidic acid), PIP (Phosphatidylinositol Phosphate), PS (Phosphatidylserine) and phosphocholine were also identified. All these are membrane lipids and function in signaling, in response to various environmental factors such as drought, change in temperature and salinity as well as several biotic stresses [53].

In current study, 23 pathways were demonstrated, out of which Glutathione pathway was commonly altered in both varieties. Glutathione biosynthesis is of significant importance as glutathione plays strong role in scavenging of ROS. It interacts with hormones and signaling molecules and its redox state triggers signal transduction [54]. Glutathione modulates cell proliferation, apoptosis, fibrogenesis, growth, development, cell cycle, gene expression, protein activity and immune function [55]. The biosynthetic pathways of some amino acids such as alanine, aspartate and glutamate, flavonoid biosynthesis and aminoacyl tRNA synthesis were also varied in both varieties. Flavonoids have been found to be accumulated during environmental stresses and protect plant cells through the inhibition of destructive ROS [56].

Citrate cycle (TCA cycle), Glyoxylate, dicarboxylate and Pyruvate metabolism were elevated in resistant variety upon fungal infection. TCA cycle is an essential metabolic pathway which creates energy for different biological activities and also provides precursors used in many biosynthetic pathways [57]. Pyruvate is a key intersection in the network of metabolic pathways [58]. Nitrogen metabolism, cysteine and methionine metabolism, arginine and proline metabolism, porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism, histidine metabolism and Flavone metabolism were also high in resistant variety on treatment with fungus. Arginine has been reported to accumulate under stress and deficiency conditions and it acts as a precursor of polyamines [59]. Previous findings show that under stress condition, the mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation is decreased and the yield of ATP is increased through proline metabolic pathway to restore stress induced damage [60]. Flavonols are considered to be the most important flavonoids participating in stress responses; having a wide range of potent physiological activities [61]. Histidine metabolism was also higher in resistant variety under pathogen treated condition. Histidine (His) is one of the standard amino acids in proteins, and plays a critical role in plant growth and development [62].

Conclusion

Metabolomics analysis of cotton leaves revealed dynamic accumulation of different metabolites, in response to the inoculation of A. tubingensis. Some of the metabolites were significantly changed only in resistant variety while some were altered in both varieties. Findings of this study helped us to conclude that the accumulation of different kinds of carbohydrates, fatty acid, amino acids, organic acids and flavonoids infer resistance to cotton plant against A. tubingensis by providing energy and signaling molecules for secondary metabolism. Moreover, the inoculation of A. tubingensis affects primary metabolism by the up regulation of pyruvate and malate and by the accumulation of carbohydrates like cellobiose and inulobiose. Several RRI metabolites, identified in the present study are the precursors for many secondary metabolic pathways. Suppression of these secondary metabolites in the susceptible variety resulted in the development of disease and their presence in resistant cultivar halted the growth of fungus. Further studies are required to involve transcriptional and genetic analyses to elucidate the pathways involved in defense mechanism of cotton plant.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of resistance related constitutive (RRC) metabolites.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. List of resistance related induced (RRI) metabolites.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan for providing financial support under international research support initiative program (IRSIP-39-BMS-41). We are also grateful to Dr. Muhammad Ahmed for providing cotton seeds.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by: Maria Khizar, IRSIP-39-BMS-41, Higher education commission, Pakistan, https://hec.gov.pk/english/scholarshipsgrants/IRSIP/Pages/default.aspx. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tayyib M, Sohail A, Shazia AM, Jamil FF. Efficacy of some new-chemistry insecticides for controlling the sucking insect pests and mites on cotton. Pakistan Entomological. 2005; 27(1):63–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fryxell PA, Craven LA, McD J. A revision of Gossypium sect. Grandicalyx (Malvaceae), including the description of six new species. Systematic Botany. 1992; 17 (1):91–114. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lutfunnessa RJ, Shamsi S. Fungal diseases of cotton plant Gossypium hirsutum L. in Bangladesh. Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences. 2011; 20(2):139–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nix A, Paull C, Colgrave M. Flavonoid Profile of the Cotton Plant, Gossypium hirsutum: A Review. Plants. 2017; 6(4): 43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iqbal MJ, Reddy OU, El-Zik KM, Pepper AE. A genetic bottleneck in the’evolution under domestication’of upland cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. examined using DNA fingerprinting. Theoretical and applied genetics. 2001; 103(4):547–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chen ZJ, Scheffler BE, Dennis E, Triplett BA, Zhang T. Toward sequencing cotton (Gossypium) genomes. Plant physiology. 2007; 145(4):1303–10. 10.1104/pp.107.107672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.May OL, Lege KE, Smith CW, Cothren JT. Development of the world cotton industry. Cotton: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. p. 1999:65–97.
  • 8.Ahmad N, Khan MH, Tofique M. Insect pests management of BT cotton through the manipulation of different eco-friendly techniques. Nucleus (Islamabad). 2011; 48(3):249–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Salunkhe VN, Gawande SP, Nagrale DT, Hiremani NS, Gokte-Narkhedkar N, Waghmare VN. First Report of Corynespora Leaf Spot of Cotton Caused by Corynespora cassiicola in Central India. Plant Disease. 2019: PDIS-05. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shirsath LP, Patil SP, Patil UK. Incidence of leaf spot disease on cotton caused by Curvularia verruculosa and role of its hydrolytic enzymes in pathogenesis. Physiology and molecular biology of plants. 2018; 24(4):711–4. 10.1007/s12298-018-0557-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perrone G, Mule G, Susca A, Battilani P, Pietri A, Logrieco A. Ochratoxin A production and amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis of Aspergillus carbonarius, Aspergillus tubingensis, and Aspergillus niger strains isolated from grapes in Italy. Applied Environment Microbiolgy. 2006; 72(1):680–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Samson RA, Noonim P, Meijer M, Houbraken JA, Frisvad JC, Varga J. Diagnostic tools to identify black aspergilli. Studies in mycology. 2007; 59:129–45. 10.3114/sim.2007.59.13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Guo JW, Gao Y, Li CY, Yang LF, Tian XJ, Hong L, et al. First Report of Leaf Spot Disease Caused by Aspergillus tubingensis on Jatropha curcas in Yunnan, China. Plant Disease. 2017; 101(3):505. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lim YS, Hassan O, Kim MK, Chang T. First Report of Bunch Rot Caused by Aspergillus tubingensis of Shine Muscat Grape in Korea. Plant Disease. 2019: PDIS-05. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fiehn O, Weckwerth W. Deciphering metabolic networks. European Journal of Biochemistry. 2003; 270(4):579–88. 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03427.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kushalappa AC, Gunnaiah R. Metabolo-proteomics to discover plant biotic stress resistance genes. Trends in Plant Science. 2013; 18(9):522–31. 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gunnaiah R, Kushalappa AC, Duggavathi R, Fox S, Somers DJ. Integrated metabolo-proteomic approach to decipher the mechanisms by which wheat QTL (Fhb1) contributes to resistance against Fusarium graminearum. PloS One. 2012; 7(7): e40695 10.1371/journal.pone.0040695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bollina V, Kumaraswamy GK, Kushalappa AC, Choo TM, Dion Y, et al. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics application to identify quantitative resistance-related metabolites in barley against Fusarium head blight. Molecular Plant Pathology. 2010; 11(6):769–82. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00643.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cho K, Kim Y, Wi SJ, Seo JB, Kwon J, Chung JH, et al. Nontargeted metabolite profiling in compatible pathogen-inoculated tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L. cv. Wisconsin 38) using UPLC-Q-TOF/MS. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2012; 60(44):11015–28. 10.1021/jf303702j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abunada Y, Kushalappa AC, Prasher SO, Mughrabi K, Murphy A. Metabolic profiling to phenotype potato genotypes varying horizontal resistance to leaf infection by Phytophthora infestans. Americas Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology. 2010; 4:55–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bolton M D. Primary metabolism and plant defense-fuel for the fire. Molecular Plant Microbe Interaction. 2009; 22(5):487–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McCormick JP. Secondary metabolites of Gossypium: a biogenetic analysis [Byssinosis, pulmonary disorders of cotton textile workers]. InACS Symposium series American Chemical Society 1982.
  • 23.Ehetisham-ul-Haq M, Kamran M, Idrees M, Farooq J, Ali S, Iqbal M, et al. Disease management of bacterial blight of cotton through upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Germplasm and chemotherapuents under field conditions. International Journal of Biosciences.2018. ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222–5234 (Online) [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Asif MU, Muhammad R, Akbar W, Sohail M, Awais M. Field evaluation of advanced cotton genotypes against insect pest complex in agro-climatic conditions of Tandojam, Sindh. Journal of Innovative Sciences. 2018; 4(2):83–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhu YN, Shi DQ, Ruan MB, Zhang LL, Meng ZH, Liu J, Yang WC. Transcriptome analysis reveals crosstalk of responsive genes to multiple abiotic stresses in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). PloS One. 2013; 8(11):e80218 10.1371/journal.pone.0080218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liaquat F, Munis MF, Arif S, Che S, Liu Q. Presence of Aspergillus tubingensis causing leaf spot disease of Helleborus species in Shanghai, China. Plant Disease. 2019; 103(4):766-. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Peshev D, Vergauwen R, Moglia A, Hideg É, Van den Ende W. Towards understanding vacuolar antioxidant mechanisms: a role for fructans?. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2013; 64(4):1025–38. 10.1093/jxb/ers377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rojas CM, Senthil-Kumar M, Tzin V, Mysore K. Regulation of primary plant metabolism during plant-pathogen interactions and its contribution to plant defense. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2014; 5:17 10.3389/fpls.2014.00017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rudrappa T, Czymmek KJ, Paré PW, Bais HP. Root-secreted malic acid recruits beneficial soil bacteria. Plant Physiology. 2008; 148:1547–1556. 10.1104/pp.108.127613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Levi A, Paterson AH, Cakmak I, Saranga Y. Metabolite and mineral analyses of cotton near-isogenic lines introgressed with QTLs for productivity and drought-related traits. Physiologia Plantarum. 2011; 141(3):265–75. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2010.01438.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pedras MSC, Jha M, Ahiahonu PWK. The Synthesis and biosynthesis of phytoalexins produced by cruciferous Plants. Current Organic Chemistry. 2003; 7:1635–1647. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Molina-Calle M, de Medina VS, Priego-Capote F, de Castro MD. Establishing compositional differences between fresh and black garlic by a metabolomics approach based on LC–QTOF MS/MS analysis. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2017; 62:155–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Frendo P, Baldacci-Cresp F, Benyamina SM, Puppo A. Glutathione and plant response to the biotic environment. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2013; 65:724–730. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2013.07.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Forde BG, Lea PJ. Glutamate in plants: metabolism, regulation, and signaling. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007; 58:2339–2358 10.1093/jxb/erm121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dhokane D, Karre S, Kushalappa AC, McCartney C. Integrated metabolo-transcriptomics reveals fusarium head blight candidate resistance genes in wheat QTL-Fhb2. PloS One. 2016; 11(5):e0155851 10.1371/journal.pone.0155851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Canales J, Rueda-López M, Craven-Bartle B, Avila C, Cánovas FM. Novel insights into regulation of Asparagine Synthetase in conifers. Frontiers in Plant Science.2011; 3:15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mansfield JW, Porter AE, Smallman RV. Dihydrowyerone derivatives as components of the furanoacetylenic phytoalexin response of tissues of Vicia faba. Phytochemistry. 1980; 19(6):1057–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sakihama Y, Cohen MF, Grace SC, Yamasaki H. Plant phenolic antioxidant and prooxidant activities: phenolics-induced oxidative damage mediated by metals in plants. Toxicology. 2002; 177(1):67–80. 10.1016/s0300-483x(02)00196-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Walley J W, Kliebenstein DJ, Bostock RM, Dehesh K. Fatty acids and early detection of pathogens. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2013; 16(4):520–526. 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mazid M, Khan TA, Mohammad F. Role of secondary metabolites in defense mechanisms of plants. Biology and Medicine. 2011; 3(2):232–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Boutigny AL, Barreau C, Atanasova-Penichon V, Verdal-Bonnin MN, Pinson-Gadais L, Richard-Forget F. Ferulic acid, an efficient inhibitor of type B trichothecene biosynthesis and Tri gene expression in Fusarium liquid cultures. Mycological Research. 2009; 113:746–753. 10.1016/j.mycres.2009.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Holowczak J. Metabolism in vitro of phloridzin and other compounds by Venturia inaequalis. Phytopathology. 1960; 52:1019–1023. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lam KY, Ling AP, Koh RY, Wong YP, Say YH. A review on medicinal properties of orientin. Advances in Pharmacological Sciences. 2016; 2016:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ali H, Dixit S. In vitro antimicrobial activity of flavanoids of Ocimum sanctum with synergistic effect of their combined form, Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease. 2012; 2:S396–S398. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Padmavati M, Sakthivel N, Thara KV, Reddy AR. Differential sensitivity of rice pathogens to growth inhibition by flavonoids. Phytochemistry. 1997; 46(3):499–502. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mierziak J, Kostyn K, Kulma A. Flavonoids as important molecules of plant interactions with the environment. Molecules. 2014; 10: 16240–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Krämer RP, Hindorf H, Jha HC, Kallage J, Zilliken F. Antifungal activity of soybean and chickpea isoflavones and their reduced derivatives. Phytochemistry.1; 23(10):2203–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Munafo JP Jr., Gianfagna TJ. Quantitative Analysis of Steroidal Glycosides in Different Organs of Easter Lily (Lilium longiflorum Thunb.) by LC-MS/MS. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011; 59:995–1004 10.1021/jf1036454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Olejnikova P, Birosova L, Svorc L, Vihonska Z, Fiedlerova M, Marchalin S, et al. Newly synthesized indolizine derivatives—Antimicrobial and antimutagenic properties. Chemical Papers. 2015; 69:983–992. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lim TK. Zanthoxylum simulans. Edible Medicinal and Non-Medicinal Plants. Fruits. 2012; 4:904911. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ma WG, Fukushi Y, Tahara S. Fungitoxic alkaloids from Hokkaido Corydalis species. Fitoterapia. 1999; 70:258–265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nagori K, Singh MK, Alexander A, Kumar T, Dewangan D, Badwaik H, et al. Piper betle L.: A review on its ethnobotany, phytochemistry, pharmacological profile and profiling by new hyphenated technique DART-MS (Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry). Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2011; 4:2991–2997. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Okazaki Y, Saito K Roles of lipids as signaling molecules and mitigators during stress response in plants. The Plant Journal. 2014; 79:584–596. 10.1111/tpj.12556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Foyer CH, Noctor G. Redox homeostasis and antioxidant signaling: a metabolic interface between stress perception and physiological responses. The Plant Cell. 2005; 17(7):1866–75. 10.1105/tpc.105.033589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ogawa KI. Glutathione-associated regulation of plant growth and stress responses. Antioxidants & redox signaling. 2005; 7(7–8):973–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bach A, Kopczynska A, Dziurka K, Dziurka M. The endogenous phenolic compounds during bulb formation in lachenalia sp. in vitro cultures under different lighting conditions. BioTechnologia. Journal of Biotechnology Computational Biology and Bionanotechnology. 2015; 96(1):39–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Desideri E, Vegliante R, Ciriolo MR. Mitochondrial dysfunctions in cancer: genetic defects and oncogenic signaling impinging on TCA cycle activity. Cancer Letters. 2015; 356(2):217–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tovar‐Méndez A, Miernyk JA, Randall DD. Regulation of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex activity in plant cells. European Journal of Biochemistry. 2003; 270(6):1043–9. 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03469.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lea PJ, Sodek L, Parry MA, Shewry PR, Halford NG. Asparagine in plants. Annals of Applied Biology. 2007; 150(1):1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Alcázar R, Marco F, Cuevas JC, Patron M, Ferrando A, Carrasco P, et al. Involvement of polyamines in plant response to abiotic stress. Biotechnology Letters. 2006; 28(23):1867–76. 10.1007/s10529-006-9179-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pollastri S, Tattini M. Flavonols: old compounds for old roles. Annals of Botany. 2011; 108(7):1225–33. 10.1093/aob/mcr234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rennenberg H, Wildhagen H, Ehlting B. Nitrogen nutrition of poplar trees. Plant Biology. 2010; 12(2):275–91. 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00309.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

25 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-26966

Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Munis,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. It was reviewed by two reviewers, one focusing on your metabolomics work while the other focusing on the cotton genotypes you have selected for the work. There are serious doubts raised on the basis of selection of genotypes. Please justify the selection of genotypes with suitable evidence and answer all questions. These are essential before we could take a final decision on the suitability of your paper for publication.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 manuscript “Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics” described that the numerous metabolites, identified through ultra high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS), are changed in response to the A. tubingensis infection in cotton. It will contribute to a better understanding of the resistant mechanism in both cultivars.

The data is solid and suitable for publication in “PloS One” after a minor revision. Meanwhile, the whole manuscript should be further polished. Introduction should illustrate in-depth background of the manuscript. In discussion section, focus should be on the discussion of the results rather than reference’s accumulation. There are some grammatical and formatting mistakes. Below some minor suggestions are listed:

Line 18. The “and abiotic” should be deleted.

Line 19. The “behavior” is more relevant term to animals, rather than plants.

Line 36. The level is same or different?

Line 39. Full stop should be added at the end of the sentence.

Line 45-53. The authors should focus more on Leaf spot of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and Aspergillus tubingensis rather than other pathogens of cotton.

Line 69-70. Is this sentence in close relationship with the context?

Line 98-100. The description is unclear, should be explained in a bit detail.

Line 194-200 and Fig. 1 and 2. There are four treatment groups, including RT, RM, SM and ST. The authors have mentioned just two groups in Fig. 1 and 2. They should also include the other two groups. Meanwhile, the leaf spot area in susceptible and resistant varieties is much larger than 5 fold in Fig. 1, while in Fig. 2 it is shown about 5 fold. The ratio in both figures does not match.

Line 337. Reference [23] should be replaced with “Levi et al.” or the sentence should be rephrased and the reference should be placed at the end of the sentence.

Line 382. “are said to” is very colloquial, so rephrase the sentence.

Reviewer #2: The research seems to be original but of not of very practical use. There is no literature available on the incidence and the losses caused due to A. tubigensis anywhere on cotton crop.: There is no information about the pathogen and identification/registration. There is no detail available wrt purity of seed and the authorized source. Methodology followed for the experimentation and inoculation is not clear; There is no reference for resistant (Sadori) and susceptible variety (CIM 88 573). How and on what basis these were selected before conducting the experiment on Gossypium hirsutum. There are no clear cut details and or references about disease symptoms, ratting and AUDPC estimation.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments PLOS.doc

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 12;15(2):e0228675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228675.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jan 2020

ANSWERS TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS

Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics

To be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

1. The study presents the results of original research. The research seems to be original but of not of very practical use. There is no literature available on the incidence and the losses caused due to A. tubigensis anywhere on cotton crop.

Answer:

In last two seasons, leaf spot disease has become one of the devastating cotton diseases in Pakistan and it was reported in national print newspapers in URDU language. No one reported this disease yet and after intensive field surveys and repeated pathogenicity tests, our lab has already reported these losses in an international journal. Our manuscript has been accepted and will be available online, very soon.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere. Need to be checked online.

Answer:

We do hereby declare that the results of this study have not been submitted or published, anywhere else.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. : There is no information about the pathogen and identification/registration. There is no detail available wrt purity of seed and the authorized source. Methodology followed for the experimentation and inoculation is not clear; There is no reference for resistant (Sadori) and susceptible variety (CIM 573). How and on what basis these were selected before conducting the experiment on Gossypium hirsutum. There are no clear cut details and or references about disease symptoms, ratting and AUDPC estimation.

Answer:

As mentioned in previous query, pathogen identification and pathogenicity results will be published online, soon. All the seeds were collected from authorized research institute of cotton and we have mentioned it in the text. Methodology followed for the experimentation and inoculation has been described in a detailed manner. References for resistant (Sadori) and susceptible variety (CIM 573) have been incorporated. Clear cut details about disease symptoms, ratting and AUDPC estimation have been added.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The nontargeted metabolomics approach aims to study both known and unknown metabolites. To comprehend the huge chunks of data this may yield, one must couple it with advanced chemometric methods such as multivariate analysis, so that these can be grouped into smaller manageable chunks. In this article no clear cut and pin pointed conclusions are drawn and the chemicals detected in resistant variety without and with inoculation are mostly of known nature. The discussion and conclusion are very vague and not very relevant to the findings.

Answer: In the revised manuscript, both multivariate analysis and PLSDA have been performed and described. As per instruction, conclusion has been modified as a precise and informative finding for the reader. This study is of significant importance because the reaction of Cotton against Aspergillus tubingensis has never been elaborated before. Both discussion and conclusion have been modified, as per instruction.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. Need English editing, and reference write-up under discussion part need to be shortened. Too much detail is given in the discussion part. Relevant references particularly on G. hirsutum are missing. Reference arrangement and style is not corrects.

Answer: English editing has been done carefully. Discussion has been revised and shortened to half. References relevant to G. hirsutum have been incorporated. Reference arrangement and style has been corrected.

ANSWERS TO EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics

Reviewer Comments to the author:

Reviewer #1:

Query 1:

Line 18. The “and abiotic” should be deleted

Answer: Desired changes have been incorporated.

Query 2:

Line 19. The “behavior” is more relevant term to animals, rather than plants.

Answer: Plant relevant term “response” has been added.

Query 3:

Line 36. The level is same or different?

Answer: For better understanding, sentence has been reconstructed.

Query 4:

Line 39. Full stop should be added at the end of the sentence.

Answer: Required changes have been incorporated.

Query 5:

Line 45-53. The authors should focus more on Leaf spot of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and Aspergillus tubingensis rather than other pathogens of cotton

Answer: Literature related to Gossypium hirsutum and Aspergillus tubingensis has been added.

Query 6:

Line 69-70. Is this sentence in close relationship with the context?

Answer: As per instruction, desired changes have been made.

Query 7:

Line 98-100. The description is unclear, should be explained in a bit detail.

Answer: Fungal Inoculation methodology has been explained in detail.

Query 8:

Line 194-200 and Fig. 1 and 2. There are four treatment groups, including RT, RM, SM and ST. The authors have mentioned just two groups in Fig. 1 and 2. They should also include the other two groups. Meanwhile, the leaf spot area in susceptible and resistant varieties is much larger than 5 fold in Fig. 1, while in Fig. 2 it is shown about 5 fold. The ratio in both figures does not match.

Answer: Keeping in view the reviewer’s concerns, pictures of RM and SM have been added. Required changes have been incorporated.

Query 9:

Line 337. Reference [23] should be replaced with “Levi et al.” or the sentence should be rephrased and the reference should be placed at the end of the sentence.

Answer: Desired changes have been incorporated.

Query 10:

Line 382. “are said to” is very colloquial, so rephrase the sentence.

Answer: Desired changes have been incorporated.

Following all queries and suggestions, we have modified article. Kindly see changes and review at your earliest.

Regards,

Dr. Muhammad Farooq Hussain Munis

(CorrespondSing Author)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answer to reviewer comments.doc

Decision Letter 1

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

22 Jan 2020

Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics

PONE-D-19-26966R1

Dear Dr. Munis,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: In this version, the authors revised carefully according to the suggestions. The quality of this manuscript is significantly improved. Now, it meets the requirement of publication. Thus, I recommend it is accepted for publication.

**********

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: Yes: Hongmei Cheng

Acceptance letter

Kandasamy Ulaganathan

24 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26966R1

Resistance Associated Metabolite Profiling of Aspergillus Leaf Spot in Cotton through Non-targeted Metabolomics

Dear Dr. Munis:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kandasamy Ulaganathan

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 Table. List of resistance related constitutive (RRC) metabolites.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. List of resistance related induced (RRI) metabolites.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments PLOS.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer to reviewer comments.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES