Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 28;15(7):e0236376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236376

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees

Dongyan Zhao 1,2, Gan-yuan Zhong 3, Guo-qing Song 1,*
Editor: Yuan Huang4
PMCID: PMC7386610  PMID: 32722723

Abstract

Grafting is a well-established agricultural practice in cherry production for clonal propagation, altered plant vigor and architecture, increased tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, precocity, and higher yield. Mobile molecules, such as water, hormones, nutrients, DNAs, RNAs, and proteins play essential roles in rootstock-scion interactions. Small RNAs (sRNAs) are 19 to 30-nucleotides (nt) RNA molecules that are a group of mobile signals in plants. Rootstock‐to‐scion transfer of transgene‐derived small interfering RNAs enabled virus resistance in nontransgenic sweet cherry scion. To determine whether there was long-distance scion-to-rootstock transfer of endogenous sRNAs, we compared sRNAs profiles in bud tissues of an ungrafted ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock, two sweet cherry ‘Emperor Francis’ scions as well as their ‘Gisela 6’ rootstocks. Over two million sRNAs were detected in each sweet cherry scion, where 21-nt sRNA (56.1% and 55.8%) being the most abundant, followed by 24-nt sRNAs (13.1% and 12.5%). Furthermore, we identified over three thousand sRNAs that were potentially transferred from the sweet cherry scions to their corresponding rootstocks. In contrast to the sRNAs in scions, among the transferred sRNAs in rootstocks, the most abundant were 24-nt sRNAs (46.3% and 34.8%) followed by 21-nt sRNAs (14.6% and 19.3%). In other words, 21-nt sRNAs had the least transferred proportion out of the total sRNAs in sources (scions) while 24-nt had the largest proportion. The transferred sRNAs were from 574 cherry transcripts, of which 350 had a match from the Arabidopsis thaliana standard protein set. The finding that “DNA or RNA binding activity” was enriched in the transcripts producing transferred sRNAs indicated that they may affect the biological processes of the rootstocks at different regulatory levels. Overall, the profiles of the transported sRNAs and their annotations revealed in this study facilitate a better understanding of the role of the long-distance transported sRNAs in sweet cherry rootstock-scion interactions as well as in branch-to-branch interactions in a tree.

Introduction

Grafting, a bud or twig as scion attached onto the lower part of another plant as rootstock, has been used widely in plant clonal propagation and crop production, especially for fruit trees [1, 2]. Its benefits include dwarfism of trees for easy harvest, increase of disease and pest resistance, and reduction of juvenility, etc. [3]. The underlying mechanisms for producing a successful graft have been studied for decades, of which how rootstocks and scions communicate with each other remains an unresolved research problem. Thus far, many metabolites, protein, mRNA, and small RNAs, including microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are all suggested to be potential molecular signals facilitating rootstock-scion communications [4–13].

Taking the advantage of heterografts between different species of the Cucurbitaceae, Bolecki and his colleagues demonstrated that at least nine proteins, including the filament-forming phloem protein 1 (PP1) and the phloem lectin PP2, were found in developing scion exudate, which corresponded to those of the respective proteins in the rootstock [7]. It was suggested that PP1 and PP2 were likely involved in transporting macromolecules within the phloem [14]. FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) is a top candidate of the florigen because many reports have demonstrated that FT proteins, instead of FT RNAs, acted as the mobile florigenic signals mainly through short-distance transport (e.g., from leaves to their adjacent buds) [15–24]. Two other reports, however, suggested that both FT proteins and FT RNAs could be transmitted [25, 26]. In additional, phytohormones regulated by FT expression may serve as important signals in long-distance transfer of floral inductive signals [27].

Similarly, transcription profile in phloem-sap of heterografts of melon stocks and pumpkin scions revealed the presence of long-distance transport of mRNAs from stocks to scions [28]. The long-distance trafficking of mRNAs via phloem and its impact on development of various plant organs (leaf, tuber, root, and flower) in grafted plants were enumerated in detail by Spiegelman and colleagues [29].

Small RNAs are a short stretch of RNA molecules, usually referring to those with size ranging from 19 to 30-nt. Small RNAs, including miRNAs and siRNAs, have been suggested to function as both short- and long-distance trafficking signals [3, 30–35]. Using miRNA microarray and grafts of wild type Brassica to mutants, miR399 and miR395 were found to be able to translocate through graft unions and function as regulating molecules in responses to stress and nutrient deficiency [36]. Another miRNA, miRNA156, has been known to be key in maintaining plant juvenile phase and mobility assays in potato heterografts suggested that it was a graft-transmissible signal that affects potato architecture and tuberization [31]. In transgrafted Arabidopsis mutants, transfer of a green fluorescent protein (GFP)-derived sRNAs (here 21–24 nt) as well as a substantial amount of endogenous sRNA through the graft unions were reported, and that 24-nt sRNAs directed epigenetic modifications in the recipient cells [9].

We have previously reported long-distance transfer of sRNAs generated from a hairpin-RNA transgene in transgenic ‘Gisela 6’ (Prunus. cerasus × P. canescens) rootstocks to nontransgenic sweet cherry (P. avium L.) scions [13]. Here, we report the findings of endogenous sRNAs transferred from sweet cherry scions to rootstocks. We showed that 21-nt sRNAs were the most abundant while 24-nt sRNAs were the second abundant sRNA species in the two sweet cherry scions. Interestingly, among the scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs, 24-nt sRNAs were the most abundant, which is in agreement with the role of 24-nt sRNAs acting as long-distance silencing signals. Additionally, it indicated that sRNA movement was likely a selective and somewhat controlled process. In summary, together with the previous finding of rootstock-to-scion sRNA transfer, the finding of sRNA transfer from scions to rootstocks will help understanding the regulation of communications between rootstocks and scions and between branches, which ultimately influences the development of grafted trees.

Materials and methods

Grafting and sample collection

In vitro ‘Gisela 6’ shoots were rooted and grown in a greenhouse to reach about 30 cm tall. Bark graft was used to attach an individual bud of a sweet cherry (P. avium) ‘Emperor Francis’ to the trunk position of about 15 cm of a ‘Gisela 6’ tree (Fig 1A). Both grafted and ungrafted trees were grown in the courtyard between two greenhouses under natural light and temperature conditions in East Lansing, Michigan. The trees were irrigated and fertilized using a regular schedule to keep them healthy. To study endogenous sRNA transfer between branches in a grafted tree, we selected two 17-month old grafted ‘Emperor Francis’ trees in which the ‘Gisela 6’ branches below the graft union were retained. The selected trees were about 2 m tall by the time of sample collection in mid-October. Two bud samples, 30–50 buds per sample, from each of the two trees were collected from the branches above 1.5 m trunk positions and from the branches of the ‘Gisela 6’, separately. Meanwhile, 30–50 buds were collected from the branches above 1.5 m trunk positions of an ungrafted ‘Gisela 6’ tree. The collected buds in 2.0 ml cryotubes were frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen and then stored in a -80 ºC freezer for RNA isolation.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Experimental design and sample collection (A) and small RNA profiles in sweet cherry scions (B).

Small RNA extractions and sequencing

Total RNA was isolated using a cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method [37]. The samples were purified using miRNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Integrity of the RNA samples was assessed using the Agilent RNA 6000 Pico Kit (Agilent Technologies, Inc. Waldbronn, Germany). Small RNA libraries were constructed using the Illumina TruSeq® Small RNA Sample Prep Kit (Illumina, Inc., Hayward, CA), which were pooled and sequenced [50‐bp (base pair) single end reads] using the Illumina HiSeq2500 platform at the Research Technology Support Facility of Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI).

Transcriptome assembly and annotation

The transcriptome of sweet cherry (P. avium L. ‘Tieton’) was generated using Trinity (v20140717) [38] using mRNAseq reads downloaded from NCBI SRA (SRA Sample #: SRS671080). The representative transcripts were obtained by selecting the longest isoform of each transcript. Functional annotation was assigned by searching against the Arabidopsis thaliana annotation (TAIR10) and Swiss-Prot plant protein database using NCBI BLAST [39], and the Pfam (v29) [40] using HMMER (v3.1b1) [41].

Small RNA discovery

The quality of raw Illumina reads generated above was assessed using FASTQC (v0.11.2) [42] using default parameters and raw reads were processed by removing residual adapter sequences and low-quality bases using Cutadapt (v1.8) [43]. The cleaned reads were aligned to the above-mentioned sweet cherry transcriptome using bowtie (v1.1.1) [44], only allowing alignments for reads having one reportable alignment that have no mismatches (—strata–best -m 1 -v 0). The candidate transferred small RNAs were obtained by taking the sRNAs present in grafted rootstocks (RS15 and RS19) but absent in the ungrafted rootstock (RS3). The higher confidence transferred sRNAs were obtained by requiring their presence in the transferred sRNA pools of both RS15 and RS19.

Gene network analysis

We imported annotated sRNAs to Cytoscape_v3.7.2 using BiNGO to construct a gene network of the overrepresented Gene Ontology (GO) terms with selected Ontology file “GO_full” and selected organism A. thaliana [45, 46].

Results and discussion

Endogenous small RNAs in sweet cherry scions

Previously, it was reported that small RNAs were transferred from rootstock to scion, suggesting that sRNA signals may play a role in rootstock-scion communication [9, 13, 47, 48]. In this study, the rootstocks (‘Gisela 6’) are different species from the scions (‘Emperor Francis’), which allowed the distinction of sRNAs specific from scions. ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock is a triploid, precocious, semi-dwarf rootstock generated from crosses between tetraploid P. cerasus (tart cherry) and diploid P. canescens [49] whereas the scions are of the species sweet cherry (P. avium). The nature that the rootstocks and scions are different species made it possible for us to identify transferred sRNAs that are unique for either species but with the disadvantage of the underestimation of sRNAs from highly conserved sequences shared by the two species. We used two unique grafted sweet cherry trees, in which some branches of the rootstocks were retained, to determine: 1) Whether endogenous sRNAs can be transferred in the opposite direction, from scion to rootstock; 2) Whether endogenous sRNAs can be transferred in a long distance between branches; and 3) What the potential roles of the total and transferred sRNAs are. To such end, we compared the sRNA profiles of a ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock (RS3) and two grafted sweet cherry ‘Emperor Francis’ trees (two replicates: Scion15 and Scion19) on ‘Gisela 6’ rootstocks (two replicates: RS15 and RS19) (Fig 1A). Immature buds were collected from branches of the ‘Gisela 6’ rootstocks and sweet cherry ‘Emperor Francis’ scions, where the distance of these buds from scion and rootstock was ~1.5 meters. Small RNA sequencing was conducted to get the pools of sRNAs. Overall, a total of 63 million 50 bp single-end reads were generated, where >96% were with Phred qualities equal to or greater than 30 (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of small RNA sequencing reads.

Sample Pass-Filter Reads Q-Score ≥ 30 Average Q-Score Yield (Gbp)
RS3 23,333,748 95.0% 37.3 1.17
RS15 8,507,397 96.5% 37.9 0.43
Scion15 10,691,794 96.7% 38.0 0.53
RS19 10,021,317 96.9% 38.0 0.50
Scion19 10,876,609 96.8% 38.0 0.54
Total 63,430,865      
Open in a new tab

In order to categorize the sRNAs, the transcriptome of sweet cherry (P. avium L. ‘Tieton’) was generated using mRNAseq reads downloaded from NCBI SRA (SRA Sample #: SRS671080). The resulting transcriptome consisted of 60,946 representative transcripts, ranging from 151 to 15,645 bp in size and N50 transcript size of 1,582 bp (Table 2). The transcripts were annotated by searching for Pfam domains and aligning to the Arabidopsis and Swiss-prot plant protein sequences (S1 Data).

Table 2. Metrics of the representative transcriptome of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L. 'Tieton').

Metrics Value
Number of representative transcripts 60,946
Longest transcript 15,645 bp
Shortest transcript 151 bp
N50 transcript size 1,582 bp
Average transcript size 729 bp
Open in a new tab

The sRNAs (19–30 nt) of the samples were obtained by aligning the reads to the representative transcriptome and then categorized according to their lengths. First, we compared sRNAs in the two sweet cherry scions. The amount of sRNAs detected were comparable between the two sweet cherry scions (S1 and S2 Tables; 2.5 million and 2.4 million sRNAs for Scion15 and Scion19, respectively), with 21-nt sRNA (56.1% and 55.8%) being the most abundant, followed by 24-nt (13.1% and 12.5%) sRNAs (Fig 1B and Table 3).

Table 3. The number and fraction (%) of sRNAs in sweet cherry scions and potential scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs.

sRNA species Scion15 (%) Scion19 (%) RS15_specific (RS15 vs. RS3) (%) RS19_specific (RS19 vs. RS3) (%)
19-nt 70,186 (2.80) 71,087 (3.01) 133 (3.68) 163 (5.05)
20-nt 175,812 (7.02) 181,400 (7.67) 165 (4.57) 188 (5.83)
21-nt 1,405,289 (56.10) 1,318,390 (55.78) 529 (14.64) 622 (19.29)
22-nt 179,587 (7.17) 167,289 (7.08) 329 (9.10) 334 (10.36)
23-nt 76,850 (3.07) 71,610 (3.03) 253 (7.00) 200 (6.20)
24-nt 328,641 (13.12) 296,071 (12.53) 1,674 (46.32) 1,123 (34.82)
25-nt 45,122 (1.80) 42,368 (1.79) 150 (4.15) 128 (3.97)
26-nt 47,801 (1.91) 45,623 (1.93) 84 (2.32) 133 (4.12)
27-nt 35,566 (1.42) 32,873 (1.39) 74 (2.05) 77 (2.39)
28-nt 42,712 (1.70) 40,730 (1.72) 92 (2.55) 83 (2.57)
29-nt 59,896 (2.39) 61,128 (2.59) 70 (1.94) 85 (2.64)
30-nt 37,731 (1.51) 35,088 (1.48) 61 (1.69) 89 (2.76)
Total 2,505,193 2,363,657 3,614 3,225
Transcripts 17,356   16,592   2,169   2,455  
Open in a new tab

The detected sRNAs were from 17,356 transcripts in Scion15 and 16,592 transcripts in Scion19, where 11,215 and 10,837 have best matches with the Arabidopsis proteome for Scion15 and Scion19, respectively (S1 and S2 Tables). Among 78 unique transcripts producing over 1,000 (111 sRNAs/million reads) 21-nt and 24-nt sRNAs in Scion15, nineteen had matches in Arabidopsis proteome. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis revealed that “transporter activity” in “molecular function” and “nucleus” in “cellular compartment” were the most prevalent in the nineteen transcripts. In the analysis of the overrepresented GO terms, 29 were identified in “biological process”, three were in “molecular function”, and no overrepresented GO terms were found in “cellular component”. Of the 29 overrepresented GO terms in “biological process”, 16 were annotated as “negative regulation of …”, which were all related to “negative regulation of biological process” in addition to the other four overrepresented GO terms including “regulation of cell communication”, “regulation of signaling pathway”, “regulation of abscisic-acid mediated signaling pathway”, and “regulation of response to stimulus” (Fig 2A). Three overrepresented GO terms in “molecular function” included “DNA helicase activity”, “ATPase activity”, and “DNA helicase activity” (Fig 2B). Similar GO results were observed for Scion19 (S1 Fig). These overrepresented GO terms revealed the potential roles of the sRNAs produced in bud tissues collected in mid-October in Michigan before the trees became dormant.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Summary of sRNAs (A) and gene networks of overrepresented sRNAs in bud tissues of sweet cherry scion 15 (Scion15) ‘Emperor Francis’ grafted on a ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock (RS15). The ontology file of GO_FULL in BiNGO and A. thaliana annotation were used as the references to identify overexpressed GO terms (P < 0.05). Bubble color indicates the P-value. Overrepresented sRNAs in “Biological process” (B) and “Molecular function” (C). No overrepresented GO terms are present in “Cellular component”.

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs from scion to rootstock

The transferred sRNAs were obtained using a grafted vs. ungrafted rootstock subtraction method (Fig 3). This resulted in 3,614 sRNAs from 2,169 transcripts for graft Scion15-to-RS15 and 3,225 sRNAs from 2,455 transcripts for Scion19-to-RS19, which were candidate sRNAs transferred from sweet cherry scions to rootstocks (Fig 4, Table 3). Overall, the number of transferred sRNAs per transcript is low, ranging from 1 to 29. In contrast to the sRNA profiles in scions, 24-nt (46.3% and 34.8% for Scion15-to-RS15 and Scion19-to-RS19, respectively) sRNAs are the most abundant followed by 21-nt (14.6% and 19.3% for Scion15-to-RS15 and Scion19-to-RS19, respectively) sRNAs in the scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs (Fig 4). To be more confident, we looked further into the common sRNAs in the two scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNA pools. This resulted in a total of 1,991 sRNAs from 574 transcripts. Similarly, 24-nt (38.0%) and 21-nt (18.9%) sRNAs were the two most abundant species. Among the small RNAs, functions of 21-nt and 24-nt species are the most well-studied, both having critical silencing functions within a given organism [9, 36]. The overrepresentation of 24-nt sRNAs is in agreement with previous research findings that 24-nt sRNAs function in long-range silencing [50]. It was suggested that 24-nt sRNA could initiate DNA methylation of the recipient cells, transcriptional regulation, and epigenetic silencing [34].

Fig 3. A diagram showing the pipeline of determining scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Fig 4. Profiles of putative sRNAs transferred from sweet cherry scions to rootstocks.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

RS15_specific and RS19_specific are sRNAs found in the grafted rootstocks, RS15 and RS19, but absent in the ungrafted.

Previous research suggested sRNA movements happen through a bulk flow process in the phloem [36]. To determine whether there was any correlation between sRNAs in scions and rootstocks, Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between sRNAs in scions (source) and scion-to-rootstock (sink) transferred sRNAs. A technically positive (R = 0.35, p = 0.26 for Scion15 and Scion15-to-RS15 transferred sRNAs) and a moderate positive (R = 0.53, p = 0.07 for Scion19 and Scion19-to-RS19 transferred sRNAs) correlation were detected, albeit, neither was statistically significant at p-value of 0.05. While for most sRNA species, the proportions of transferred sRNAs were relatively similar (1–2‰ of sRNAs in scions), it was particularly intriguing that the transferred 21-nt sRNAs were only 0.38‰ (Scion15-to-RS15) and 0.47‰ (Scion19-to-RS19) of the total sRNAs detected in the source (scions), which were the lowest among all sRNA species. On the contrary, the proportion of transferred 24-nt sRNAs accounted for 5.09‰ (Scion15-to-RS15) and 3.79‰ (Scion19-to-RS19) of the sRNAs in the source, which were 14 and 8-fold higher than that of 21-nt sRNAs. The uneven transfer of different sRNA species suggested sRNA transfer may be selective and somewhat controlled. More in-depth genetic and genomic studies are required to further demystify this question.

Transferred small RNAs belong to transcripts involved in binding and hydrolase activities

Among the 574 transcripts with transferred sRNAs common in the two replicates (S3 Table), 350 were annotated with best protein matches in Arabidopsis. To determine the potential function of these sRNAs, gene ontology analysis was done. Within the biological process category, transcripts with “DNA or RNA binding activity” (χ2 = 3.263, p = 0.07) and “hydrolase activity” (χ2 = 1.133, p = 0.29) were enriched, but not statistically significant. Proteins with “DNA or RNA binding activity” regulate many cellular processes, including transcription, mRNA processing, translation, gene silencing [51]. Therefore, the transferred sRNAs of these transcripts may affect the biological processes of the recipient plants (rootstocks) at different levels.

Summary

Although the transfer of sRNAs does not indicate a physiological role by itself, it is highly likely that small RNAs transferred from scion to rootstock may affect the development of the rootstock as was shown that rootstock-to-scion transferred sRNAs enabled virus resistance in scion. Collectively, sRNA transfer can happen in either direction between rootstocks and scions, likely being involved in inter-communications between scions and rootstocks.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Summary of sRNAs (A) and gene networks of overrepresented sRNAs in bud tissues of sweet cherry scion 19 (Scion19) ‘Emperor Francis’ grafted on a ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock (RS19). The ontology file of GO_FULL in BiNGO and A. thaliana annotation were used as the references to identify overexpressed GO terms (P < 0.05). Bubble color indicates the P-value. Overrepresented sRNAs in “Biological process” (B) and “Molecular function” (C). No overrepresented GO terms are present in “Cellular component”.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file. (5.1MB, tiff)
S1 Table. Small RNAs in sweet cherry Scion15.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Small RNAs in sweet cherry Scion19.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Potential scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs in common between rootstocks, RS15 and RS19.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (91.4KB, xlsx)
S1 Data. The transcriptome of sweet cherry (P. avium L. ‘Tieton’).

(FA)

Click here for additional data file. (44.6MB, fa)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was supported by AgBioResearch of Michigan State University. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Martínez-Ballesta M. C., Alcaraz-López C., Muries B., Mota-Cadenas C., and Carvajal M. (2010). Physiological aspects of rootstock-scion interactions. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 127, 112–118. 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mudge K., Janick J., Scofield S., and Goldschmidt E. E. (2009). A History of Grafting. Hortic. Rev. (Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci). 35, 437–493. 10.1002/9780470593776.ch9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Goldschmidt E. E. (2014). Plant grafting: New mechanisms, evolutionary implications. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 1–9. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Allevato E., Mauro R.P., Stazi S.R., Marabottini R., Leonardi C., Ierna A., et al. (2019). Arsenic Accumulation in Grafted Melon Plants: Role of Rootstock in Modulating Root-To-Shoot Translocation and Physiological Response. Agronomy-Basel 9(12). ARTN 828 10.3390/agronomy9120828. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dandekar A. M., Jacobson A., Ibáñez A. M., Gouran H., Dolan D. L., Agüero C. B., et al. (2019). Trans-graft protection against pierce’s disease mediated by transgenic grapevine rootstocks. Front. Plant Sci. 10.3389/fpls.2019.00084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gautier A. T., Chambaud C., Brocard L., Ollat N., Gambetta G. A., Delrot S., et al. (2019). Merging genotypes: Graft union formation and scion-rootstock interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 10.1093/jxb/ery422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Golecki B., Schulz A., Carstens-Behrens U., and Kollmann R. (1998). Evidence for graft transmission of structural phloem proteins or their precursors in heterografts of Cucurbitaceae. Planta 206, 630–640. 10.1007/s004250050441 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Haroldsen V. M., Szczerba M. W., Aktas H., Lopez-Baltazar J., Odias M. J., Chi-Ham C. L., et al. (2012). Mobility of transgenic nucleic acids and proteins within grafted rootstocks for agricultural improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 3, 1–12. 10.3389/fpls.2012.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Molnar A., Melnyk C. W., Bassett A., Hardcastle T. J., Dunn R., and Baulcombe D. C. (2010). Small silencing RNAs in plants are mobile and direct epigenetic modification in recipient cells. Science (80-) 328, 872–875. 10.1126/science.1187959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Prodhomme D., Valls Fonayet J., Hévin C., Franc C., Hilbert G., De Revel G., et al. (2019). Metabolite profiling during graft union formation reveals the reprogramming of primary metabolism and the induction of stilbene synthesis at the graft interface in grapevine. BMC Plant Biol. 10.1186/s12870-019-2055-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Song G. Q., Walworth A. E., and Loescher W. H. (2015). Grafting of genetically engineered plants. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 10.21273/jashs.140.3.203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Taller J., Hirata Y., Yagishita N., Kita M., and Ogata S. (1998). Graft-induced genetic changes and the inheritance of several characteristics in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 97, 705–713. 10.1007/s001220050946 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhao D., and Song G. Q. (2014). Rootstock-to-scion transfer of transgene-derived small interfering RNAs and their effect on virus resistance in nontransgenic sweet cherry. Plant Biotechnol. J. 12, 1319–1328. 10.1111/pbi.12243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tiedemann R., and Carstens-Behrens U. (1994). Influence of Grafting on the Phloem Protein Patterns in Cucurbitaceae. I. Additional Phloem Exudate Proteins in Cucumis sativus Grafted on two Cucurbita Species. J. Plant Physiol. 10.1016/s0176-1617(11)80663-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen Q., Payyavula R. S., Chen L., Zhang J., Zhang C., and Turgeon R. (2018). FLOWERING LOCUS T mRNA is synthesized in specialized companion cells in Arabidopsis and Maryland Mammoth tobacco leaf veins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 10.1073/pnas.1719455115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Corbesier Laurent, Vincent C., Jang S, Fornara F., Fan Q., et al. (2007). Arabidopsis FT protein movement contributes in floral long-distance signaling induction of arabidopsis. Science (80-) 316, 1030–1033. 10.1126/science.1141752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jaeger K. E., and Wigge P. A. (2007). FT Protein Acts as a Long-Range Signal in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mathieu J., Warthmann N., Küttner F., and Schmid M. (2007). Export of FT Protein from Phloem Companion Cells Is Sufficient for Floral Induction in Arabidopsis. Curr. Biol. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Notaguchi M., Abe M., Kimura T., Daimon Y., Kobayashi T., Yamaguchi A., et al. (2008). Long-distance, graft-transmissible action of Arabidopsis FLOWERING LOCUS T protein to promote flowering. Plant Cell Physiol. 10.1093/pcp/pcn154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Putterill J., and Varkonyi-Gasic E. (2016). FT and florigen long-distance flowering control in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10.1016/j.pbi.2016.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tamaki S., Tsuji H., Matsumoto A., Fujita A., Shimatani Z., Terada R., et al. (2015). FT-like proteins induce transposon silencing in the shoot apex during floral induction in rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 10.1073/pnas.1417623112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Turck F., Fornara F., and Coupland G. (2008). Regulation and Identity of Florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T Moves Center Stage. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yoo S. J., Hong S. M., Jung H. S., and Ahn J. H. (2013). The cotyledons produce sufficient FT protein to induce flowering: Evidence from cotyledon micrografting in arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 10.1093/pcp/pcs158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhu Y., Liu L., Shen L., and Yu H. (2016). NaKR1 regulates long-distance movement of FLOWERING LOCUS T in Arabidopsis. Nat. Plants. 10.1038/nplants.2016.75 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Huang N. C., Luo K. R., and Yu T. S. (2018). Mobility of Antiflorigen and PEBP mRNAs in Tomato-Tobacco Heterografts. Plant Physiol. 10.1104/pp.18.00725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lu K. J., Huang N. C., Liu Y. S., Lu C. A., and Yu T. S. (2012). Long-distance movement of Arabidopsis FLOWERING LOCUS T RNA participates in systemic floral regulation. RNA Biol. 10.4161/rna.19965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Song G. Qing Walworth, A., Lin T., Chen Q., Han X., Irina Zaharia L., et al. (2019). VcFT-induced mobile florigenic signals in transgenic and transgrafted blueberries. Hortic. Res. 10.1038/s41438-019-0188-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Omid A., Keilin T., Glass A., Leshkowitz D., and Wolf S. (2007). Characterization of phloem-sap transcription profile in melon plants. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 3645–3656. 10.1093/jxb/erm214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Spiegelman Z., Golan G., and Wolf S. (2013). Don’t kill the messenger: Long-distance trafficking of mRNA molecules. Plant Sci. 213, 1–8. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2013.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alagna F., Geu-Flores F., Kries H., Panara F., Baldoni L., O’Connor S. E., et al. (2016). Identification and characterization of the iridoid synthase involved in oleuropein biosynthesis in olive (Olea europaea) fruits. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 5542–54. 10.1074/jbc.M115.701276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bhogale S., Mahajan A. S., Natarajan B., Rajabhoj M., Thulasiram H. V., and Banerjee A. K. (2014). MicroRNA156: A potential graft-transmissible microrna that modulates plant architecture and tuberization in Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena. Plant Physiol. 164, 1011–1027. 10.1104/pp.113.230714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Harada T. (2010). Grafting and RNA transport via phloem tissue in horticultural plants. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 125, 545–550. 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.05.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li J., Wang Y., Zhang L., Liu B., Cao L., Qi Z., et al. (2013). Heritable variation and small RNAs in the progeny of chimeras of Brassica juncea and Brassica oleracea. J. Exp. Bot. 64, 4851–4862. 10.1093/jxb/ert266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Melnyk C. W., Molnar A., and Baulcombe D. C. (2011). Intercellular and systemic movement of RNA silencing signals. EMBO J. 30, 3553–3563. 10.1038/emboj.2011.274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sarkies P., and Miska E. A. (2014). Small RNAs break out: The molecular cell biology of mobile small RNAs. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 525–535. 10.1038/nrm3840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Buhtz A., Pieritz J., Springer F., and Kehr J. (2010). Phloem small RNAs, nutrient stress responses, and systemic mobility. BMC Plant Biol. 10 10.1186/1471-2229-10-64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zamboni A., Pierantoni L., and De Franceschi P. (2009). Total RNA extraction from strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) and several other woody-plants. IForest. 10.3832/ifor0465-0010122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Haas B. J., Papanicolaou A., Yassour M., Grabherr M., Blood P. D., Bowden J., et al. (2013). De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1494–1512. 10.1038/nprot.2013.084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Camacho C., Coulouris G., Avagyan V., Ma N., Papadopoulos J., Bealer K., et al. (2009). BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 421 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.El-Gebali S., Mistry J., Bateman A., Eddy S. R., Luciani A., Potter S. C., et al. (2018). The Pfam protein families database in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 10.1093/nar/gky995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Eddy S. R. (2011). Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Andrews S. (2010). FastQC—A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/. citeulike-article-id:11583827. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Martin M. (2011). Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Langmead B. (2010). Aligning short sequencing reads with Bowtie. Curr. Protoc. Bioinforma. 11, Unit-11.7. 10.1002/0471250953.bi1107s32 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Maere S., Heymans K., and Kuiper M. (2005). BiNGO: A Cytoscape plugin to assess overrepresentation of Gene Ontology categories in Biological Networks. Bioinformatics. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shannon P., Markiel A., Ozier O., Baliga N. S., Wang J. T., Ramage D., et al. (2003). Cytoscape: A software Environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 10.1101/gr.1239303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Agüero C. B., Uratsu S. L., Greve C., Powell A. L. T., Labavitch J. M., Meredith C. P., et al. (2005). Evaluation of tolerance to Pierce’s disease and Botrytis in transgenic plants of Vitis vinifera L. expressing the pear PGIP gene. Mol. Plant Pathol. 10.1111/J.1364-3703.2004.00262.X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Molnar A., Melnyk C., and Baulcombe D. C. (2011). Silencing signals in plants: A long journey for small RNAs. Genome Biol. 10.1186/gb-2010-11-12-219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gutzwiler J., and Lang G. A. (2001). Sweet cherry crop load and vigor management on Gisela rootstocks. Acta Hortic. 557, 321–325. 10.17660/actahortic.2001.557.42 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kalantidis K., Schumacher H. T., Alexiadis T., and Helm J. M. (2008). RNA silencing movement in plants. Biol. Cell 100, 13–26. 10.1042/BC20070079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hudson W. H., and Ortlund E. A. (2014). The structure, function and evolution of proteins that bind DNA and RNA. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10.1038/nrm3884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yuan Huang

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-11020

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Song,

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 Jun 21 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,

Yuan Huang

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

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

[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: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: In the manuscript entitled “Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees”, the author reported that endogenous small RNAs of grafted sweet cherry trees can be transferred from scion to rootstock. GO analysis was used to demonstrate communication functions of long-distance transported sRNAs. However, there are still a lot of queries need to be addressed.

Major

1. Author mentioned that “small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks”, but actually the samples were buds in the branches but not whole branches. What was the agricultural meaning of sRNAs transport between buds?

2. As we know that fruit tree is a high heterozygous species. I am wondering, are those two ‘Gisela 6’ stocks grafted with scion15/19 and ungrafted stock the same ‘Gisela 6’ propagated by asexual reproduction? If yes, I am again wondering how to distinguish either SNPs or mobile sRNA between ‘Gisela 6’ and scions by sequencing? More detailed protocol required to describe.

3. The direction of RNA signals was reported mobile from source-to-sink, in designed experiment of Figure 1A, as main source tissue, scion15/19 derived sRNA absolutely will move to sink ‘Gisela 6’ following a major flow. So in your opinion what decide the moving direction of sRNA?

4. I think the logic of lines 169 to 186 is unclear. Perhaps you should use a Venn diagram to explain how many sRNAs have been identified and how many have been annotated, and then talk about specific functional annotations.

5. More biological evidences for example transient RNA silencing experiment need to further prove the conclusions.

Minor

1. “21” in line 165 should be replaced with “24”

2. The word "value" in Table 1 should be replaced with more specific unit, for example “reads”.

3. Please add the counts and proportions of the transferred sRNAs in Figure 3 to make the picture information more abundant. Another problem in Figure 3 is that the three blue arrows are too random to be understood.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript entitled “Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees” by Zhao et al. was focused on comparison of sRNAs profiles in bud tissues of an ungrafted ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock, two sweet cherry ‘Emperor Francis’ scions as well as their ‘Gisela 6’ rootstocks to determine whether there was long-distance scion-to rootstock transfer of endogenous sRNAs. This was an interesting scientific problem, and the manuscript was well writing and clear demonstration. However, in my options, this work was primarily and other questions as follows limited acceptance for publication in this journal.

1. Authors believed some sRNAs involvement in transport between rootstock and scion, which based on the data of bioinformatics analysis, but not biochemical analysis, so the results should check again by PCR.

2. Authors analyzed function of target gene of sRNAs from scion by bioinformatics, perhaps the target gene of sRNAs from scion was different from rootstock, so the GO work were insufficiency of evidence.

3. Material cultivation environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, illumination et al. and grafting process and method were suggested to be supplied in the paper.

4. In fact, I cannot understand how to determinate candidate transferred small RNAs? Because I believe grafting maybe induced sRNAs expression but not rootstock or scion.

**********

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.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 28;15(7):e0236376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236376.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 Jun 2020

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 the manuscript entitled “Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees”, the author reported that endogenous small RNAs of grafted sweet cherry trees can be transferred from scion to rootstock. GO analysis was used to demonstrate communication functions of long-distance transported sRNAs. However, there are still a lot of queries need to be addressed.

1. Author mentioned that “small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks”, but actually the samples were buds in the branches but not whole branches. What was the agricultural meaning of sRNAs transport between buds?

Response: Yes, the more precise expression should be “small RNAs in buds of branches of scions and rootstocks”. The importance of studying the sRNAs in buds is in multiple folds:

a. buds are one of the most critical receptor organs of environmental and internal signals, which ultimately determine when to break buds and flower. This is agriculturally important because it’s directly related to fruit production.

b. secondly, we selected buds also because they are the distal parts of the plant with the distance between buds of scions and rootstocks the longest.

2. As we know that fruit tree is a high heterozygous species. I am wondering, are those two ‘Gisela 6’ stocks grafted with scion15/19 and ungrafted stock the same ‘Gisela 6’ propagated by asexual reproduction? If yes, I am again wondering how to distinguish either SNPs or mobile sRNA between ‘Gisela 6’ and scions by sequencing? More detailed protocol required to describe.

Response: The ‘Gisela 6’ stocks were clonally propagated. ‘Gisela 6’ was a hybrid between a tetraploid tart cherry (Prunus cerasus) and a diploid hoary cherry (Prunus canescens), both are different species from the sweet cherry (Prunus avium) scions. We acknowledge that only species-specific sRNAs were recovered in the transferred sRNA pools and those from highly conserved genes between the stocks and scions were left unaccounted, which resulted an underestimation of total transferred sRNAs. We added some texts to better express this situation.

“‘Gisela 6’ rootstock is a triploid, precocious, semi-dwarf rootstock generated from crosses between tetraploid P. cerasus (tart cherry) and diploid P. canescens (Gutzwiler and Lang, 2001) whereas the scions are of the species sweet cherry (P. avium). The nature that the rootstocks and scions are different species made it possible for us to identify transferred sRNAs that are unique for either species but with the disadvantage of the underestimation of sRNAs from highly conserved sequences shared by the two species.”

3. The direction of RNA signals was reported mobile from source-to-sink, in designed experiment of Figure 1A, as main source tissue, scion15/19 derived sRNA absolutely will move to sink ‘Gisela 6’ following a major flow. So in your opinion what decide the moving direction of sRNA?

Response: This is a very good and hard question. Let me begin with clarifying this: sRNA transfer is bi-directional. We demonstrated the rootstock-to-scion sRNA transfer in a previous study (Zhao and Song, 2014) AND here scion-to-rootstock sRNA transfer. The “source and sink” were defined based on which direction one examined, so rootstock can be “source” when we look at sRNA transfer from rootstock to scion and “sink” when we look at sRNA transfer from scion to rootstock.

As to “what decide the moving direction of sRNAs”, there are good reviews on this topic, for example, Melnyk et al., 2011. In a few words, several mechanisms were proposed, including passive movement of sRNAs in phloem and possible selective movement for which the mechanism is still unclear.

4. I think the logic of lines 169 to 186 is unclear. Perhaps you should use a Venn diagram to explain how many sRNAs have been identified and how many have been annotated, and then talk about specific functional annotations.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We added a diagram showing this part of the result (See Figure 2A for replicate Scion15 and Supplementary Figure S1A for replicate Scion19).

5. More biological evidences for example transient RNA silencing experiment need to further prove the conclusions.

Response: We completely agree with you on this, which is why we are cautious about drawing concrete implications from the sRNA results in this study. While empirical evidence is needed, it will be the focus of future work.

Minor

1. “21” in line 165 should be replaced with “24”

Response: Thanks. We corrected it.

2. The word "value" in Table 1 should be replaced with more specific unit, for example “reads”.

Response: Thanks for pointing it out. Since there are two types of values in this column, we added the unit for all of them to make it easy to read and understand.

3. Please add the counts and proportions of the transferred sRNAs in Figure 3 to make the picture information more abundant. Another problem in Figure 3 is that the three blue arrows are too random to be understood.

Response: Very good suggestion. We modified Figure 3 accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript entitled “Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees” by Zhao et al. was focused on comparison of sRNAs profiles in bud tissues of an ungrafted ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock, two sweet cherry ‘Emperor Francis’ scions as well as their ‘Gisela 6’ rootstocks to determine whether there was long-distance scion-to rootstock transfer of endogenous sRNAs. This was an interesting scientific problem, and the manuscript was well writing and clear demonstration. However, in my options, this work was primarily and other questions as follows limited acceptance for publication in this journal.

1. Authors believed some sRNAs involvement in transport between rootstock and scion, which based on the data of bioinformatics analysis, but not biochemical analysis, so the results should check again by PCR.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. You are right and biochemical analysis will be the focus of other studies and is not an area of our expertise. For our previous work (Zhao and Song, 2014), where we investigated the rootstock-to-scion transfer of sRNAs generated from a transgene in rootstock, we did qRT-PCR as well, which turned out to be less sensitive compared to sRNA sequencing (high-throughput sequencing following small RNA extraction). Therefore, we chose sRNA sequencing for the study presented here. Moreover, considering the fast and wide adoption of high-throughput sequencing for studying sRNA, the current analysis should suffice our aim in this study, which is to confirm the scion-to-rootstock transfer of sRNA.

2. Authors analyzed function of target gene of sRNAs from scion by bioinformatics, perhaps the target gene of sRNAs from scion was different from rootstock, so the GO work were insufficiency of evidence.

Response: We agree it’s a valid concern. It is possible the target genes, especially the cascade of sRNA silencing might be different between scions and rootstocks. This comes again down to the biochemical analysis as mentioned in the last comment, without which only sequence homology can be used to deduce the potential function of sRNAs.

3. Material cultivation environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, illumination et al. and grafting process and method were suggested to be supplied in the paper.

Response: We added the information in lines 101-104.

4. In fact, I cannot understand how to determinate candidate transferred small RNAs? Because I believe grafting maybe induced sRNAs expression but not rootstock or scion.

Response: We agree the sRNA pool is usually a result of multiple factors, including grafting and other abiotic and biotic stimuli. However, the sRNA profiling was done two-years after the grafting, when the impact of grafting (specifically, the mechanistic lesion) subsided. In addition, the fact that the rootstocks (Prunus cerasus x Prunus canescens) and scions (Prunus avium) are different species enabled the profiling of transferred sRNAs.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (21.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yuan Huang

18 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-11020R1

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Song,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yuan Huang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: In this paper, the small RNA differences among different scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees were analyzed, and a batch of endogenous sRNAs for potential long-distance scion-to-rootstock transfer was screened. This study provided references for sRNA function research in the biological processes of the recipient plants.

Overall, the author has replied the questions raised by Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly. However, due to the understanding of the role of the long-distance transported sRNAs in sweet cherry was all based on sRNAs profiles, It is suggested that the information about sequencing depth and quality of the original data should be provided in detail to prove the reliability of the relevant conclusions.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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. 2020 Jul 28;15(7):e0236376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236376.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

2 Jul 2020

Reviewer #3: In this paper, the small RNA differences among different scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees were analyzed, and a batch of endogenous sRNAs for potential long-distance scion-to-rootstock transfer was screened. This study provided references for sRNA function research in the biological processes of the recipient plants.

Overall, the author has replied the questions raised by Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly. However, due to the understanding of the role of the long-distance transported sRNAs in sweet cherry was all based on sRNAs profiles, It is suggested that the information about sequencing depth and quality of the original data should be provided in detail to prove the reliability of the relevant conclusions.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We added Table 1 (the summary of small RNA sequencing reads) and mentioned the read information in the manuscript as follows:

“Overall, a total of 63 million 50 bp single-end reads were generated, where >96% were with Phred qualities equal to or greater than 30 (Table 1).”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_v2_20200630.docx

Click here for additional data file. (15.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Yuan Huang

7 Jul 2020

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees

PONE-D-20-11020R2

Dear Dr. Song,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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,

Yuan Huang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yuan Huang

10 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-11020R2

Transfer of endogenous small RNAs between branches of scions and rootstocks in grafted sweet cherry trees

Dear Dr. Song:

I'm 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 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 plosone@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. Yuan Huang

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

    Summary of sRNAs (A) and gene networks of overrepresented sRNAs in bud tissues of sweet cherry scion 19 (Scion19) ‘Emperor Francis’ grafted on a ‘Gisela 6’ rootstock (RS19). The ontology file of GO_FULL in BiNGO and A. thaliana annotation were used as the references to identify overexpressed GO terms (P < 0.05). Bubble color indicates the P-value. Overrepresented sRNAs in “Biological process” (B) and “Molecular function” (C). No overrepresented GO terms are present in “Cellular component”.

    (TIFF)

    Click here for additional data file. (5.1MB, tiff)
    S1 Table. Small RNAs in sweet cherry Scion15.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Small RNAs in sweet cherry Scion19.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Potential scion-to-rootstock transferred sRNAs in common between rootstocks, RS15 and RS19.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (91.4KB, xlsx)
    S1 Data. The transcriptome of sweet cherry (P. avium L. ‘Tieton’).

    (FA)

    Click here for additional data file. (44.6MB, fa)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (21.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_v2_20200630.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (15.5KB, docx)

    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