Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0237194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237194

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

Wen-shu Kang 1, Li-jie Chen 2, Yuan-yuan Wang 3, Xiao-feng Zhu 2, Xiao-yu Liu 4, Hai-yan Fan 2, Yu-xi Duan 2,*
Editor: Hon-Ming Lam5
PMCID: PMC7410315  PMID: 32760135

Abstract

We aimed to profile the metabolism of soybean roots that were infected with soybean cyst nematodes and treated with Bacillus simplex to identify metabolic differences that may explain nematode resistance. Compared with control soybean roots, B. simplex-treated soybean roots contained lower levels of glucose, fructose, sucrose, and trehalose, which reduced the nematodes’ food source. Furthermore, treatment with B. simplex led to higher levels of melibiose, gluconic acid, lactic acid, phytosphingosine, and noradrenaline in soybean roots, which promoted nematocidal activity. The levels of oxoproline, maltose, and galactose were lowered after B. simplex treatment, which improved disease resistance. Collectively, this study provides insight into the metabolic alterations induced by B. simplex treatment, which affects the interactions with soybean cyst nematodes.

Introduction

Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content, making soybean a vital crop for the industry and agriculture. This places a high importance on efficient production of soybean with a high yield. Heterodera glycines, also known as soybean cyst nematode (SCN), is a major soybean pathogen that can hinder the growth and production of soybean. Environmentally friendly biological control methods are becoming increasingly popular to prevent nematode diseases to improve the sustainability of agriculture. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonise the rhizosphere of various species of plants and are now used as a biological control tool to increase growth and enhance disease resistance to fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes [1]. Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhances soybean resistance to SCN [2]. Coating seeds with these bacteria is simple and produces a cost-effective strategy to control SCN. This priming method leads to quicker and more effective development of active defence responses against phytopathogens without negatively affecting soybean plant growth [3].

An increasing number of reports have shown that metabolomics research using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is advantageous for studying plant-nematode interactions [46]. GC-MS robustly identifies and quantifies the metabolites from plant extracts [7, 8] and elucidates the primary pathways used in metabolism while offering good sensitivity and reliability. It is significantly more sensitive than nuclear magnetic resonance and is more reliable compared with liquid chromatography–linked mass spectrometry [9].

In this study, we used GC-MS to profile the metabolites of soybean roots after treatment with Sneb545 and investigated the metabolic changes during SCN infection. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to systematically analyse the metabolic changes after Sneb545-treatment in SCN-infected soybean roots. We hypothesized that bacteria could improve soybean resistance to nematode infection by inducing the soybean plant roots to produce substances with nematode killing activity or inhibiting the nematode’s growth and development.

Methods

Bacterial strains

We used the Sneb545 strain of B. simplex, which was previously selected in a two-year field experiment by the Northern Nematode Institute of Sheng yang Agriculture University in China [2].

Plant growth, treatment, and harvest

Seeds of a susceptible soybean cultivar, Liao15, were sterilised in 1% sodium hypochlorite and moderately shaken for 3 min as described previously [10]. Subsequently, the seeds were washed with 70% ethanol and 1% of the seeds were coated with Sneb545. Control seeds were treated with sterile distilled water. We potted the sterilized seeds in a 1:1 mixture of sterilised soil and sand and grew the plants in a 16:8 light-dark cycle at 26 ± 3°C.

The race 3 strain of SCN was collected from soil samples by washing with a 1.9 M sucrose solution followed by centrifugation at 2,000 rpm. SCN cysts were incubated in a chamber dip at 26°C in 3 mM ZnSO4 until second-stage juveniles (J2) hatched from the eggs. The J2 nematodes were pooled in fresh distilled water and their concentration was determined. The roots of untreated and Sneb545-treated seedlings were inoculated with SCN by exposure to 1 ml J2 solution at a concentration of 1,000 J2/ml mixed with 0.2% agar when two leaves had emerged from the seedlings. The respective untreated and Sneb545-treated controls were not inoculated with SCN. When two true leaves were grown from soybean, the root of soybean was inoculated with soybean cyst nematode. Root samples of two biological replicates per treatment were harvested in triplicate at 5 and 10 days post-inoculation (dpi) and were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at –80°C for further analyses.

Nematode infection assay

The juvenile SCN in Sneb545-treated and control Liao15 roots were examined over time and we detected the development of SCN from J2 to J3 stage according to Bird’s protocol by staining the SCN with 0.01% acid fuchsin as described previously [11].

Extraction and derivation of metabolites

We added 0.4 ml of methanol and water mixture in a 3:1 volume ratio to 50 mg of soybean root tissue. Then, 20 μl 2 mg/ml Adonitol in distilled water was added as an internal standard. A ball mill was used to homogenise the mixture for 4 min at 40 Hz followed by ultrasound treatment for 5 min in ice water. The samples were then centrifuged for 15 min at 12000 rpm and 4°C. We transferred 0.35ml of the supernatant to 2 ml GC-MS glass vials and pooled 9 μl from each sample for quality control checks. The liquid was evaporated in a vacuum concentrator at room temperature. The samples were dissolved in 20 μl 20 mg/ml methoxyamine hydrochloride in pyridine and incubated for 30 min at 80°C. Subsequently, 30 μl 1% TMCS in trimethylchlorosilane (BSTFA) was added to the samples and further incubated for 2 h at 70 °C. Finally, 7 μl of fatty acid methyl ester mixture in chloroform was added to the quality control sample. The samples were mixed before GC-MS analysis.

GC-MS analysis

An Agilent 7890 gas chromatograph (Agilent, USA) was used in conjunction with a Pegasus® HT time-of-flight mass spectrometer (LEGO, USA) for gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC/TOFMS) analyses. Our setup used a 30 m × 250 μm inner diameter DB-5MS column with a film thickness of 0.25 μm (J&W Scientific, USA). We injected 1 μl of the sample for analysis. The carrier gas was helium with a purge flow of 3 ml/min and a gas flow of 1 ml/min. The temperature cycle was as follows: 50 °C for 1 min, which was then increased to 300 °C at a rate of 10°C/min, and finally 300°C for 8 min. The temperatures of the injection, transfer line, and ion source were maintained at 280, 270, and 220°C, respectively and the energy was set at -70 eV. After a solvent delay of 460 s, we acquired the data with an m/z range of 50–500 at a rate of 20 spectra/s.

Nematode mortality assessment

We assessed the mortality rate of the SCNs when exposed to 500 μg/ml phytosphingosine and noradrenaline dissolved in 2% Tween 80 (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) and 4% methanol (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) as described previously [12]

Statistical analysis

The nematode infection and mortality data were examined using Student’s t-test in SPSS 17.0 (IBM, USA) and a P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Chroma TOF4.3X (LECO Corporation, USA) and the LECO-Fiehn Rtx5 database were used to exact, align, and identify the peaks and filter and calibrate the baseline data. Furthermore, we also performed deconvolution analysis and determined the peak area as described previously [12]. The peak data were analysed by SIMCA14.1 (Umetrics, Sweden) for orthogonal projections to latent structures-discriminate analysis (OPLS-DA).

Results

Developmental differences of juveniles in differentially treated soybean roots

Sneb545-treated and control soybean roots were inoculated with SCN and we examined the SCN development. The number of J2 SCN at all time points were significantly lower with Sneb545 treatment than in the controls (Fig 1).

Fig 1. The different stages of SCN in mock and Sneb545- treated soybeans roots at days 5 and 10.

Fig 1

5CI/10CI indicate mock-treated soybean roots and 5CI/10CI indicate Sneb545-treated soybean roots at days 5 and 10 after SCN inoculation respectively.

Metabolic profile

Total ion chromatograms of soybean roots samples revealed that 15 metabolites were confirmed from 411 peaks and included sugars, alcohols, and organic acids (Fig 2).

Fig 2. GC/MS TICs of soybean roots samples.

Fig 2

The y-axis indicates the relative mass abundance and the x-axis represents the retention time.

Metabolic profiling of SCN-infected soybean roots treated with Sneb545

OPLS-DA was used to examine the diverse metabolic patterns from the chromatograms. According to the R2 and Q2 values, the models were of good quality and representative of the data (Table 1). Soybeans treated with Sneb545 and control soybeans were distinguishable in the OPLS-DA plot (Fig 3).

Table 1. Assessment of modelling quality.

Group R2X R2Y Q2
5TI VS 5CI 0.222 0.984 0.262
10TI VS 10CI 0.328 0.943 0.18

Fig 3. OPLS-DA model analysis performed on the most diverse sample at (A) day 5 and (B) day 10 post-inoculation.

Fig 3

CI indicates SCN-inoculated mock-treated soybean roots and TI indicates SCN-inoculated Sneb545-treated soybean roots.

Potential sugar metabolic pathway markers for Sneb545-induced soybean resistance to SCN

We used the variable importance in the projection (VIP) of the first principal component of the OPLS-DA model described above (threshold > 1) as well as the P-value of the Student's t-test (threshold < 0.1) to select the variables that contributed to group separation (Table 2). We found that treating soybeans with Sneb545 resulted in downregulation of L-threose, allose, xylose, fructose, D-talose, galactose, phytosphingosine, sucrose, trehalose, and gentiobiose while lactic acid, gluconic acid, noradrenaline, phytosphingosine, and melibiose were upregulated.

Table 2. List of different metabolites found in the Sneb545-treated and control soybean roots.

ID Peak RT Count Mass VIP p-Value Fold change
54 Lactic acida 9.21031,0 56 117 1.58633 0.094723 1.438946963
279 Oxoprolinea 15.7083,0 48 156 1.59914 0.094283 0.258598133
444 Fructose a 19.667,0 14 465 1.77095 0.076189 4.41631E-05
464 Galactose a 20.0351,0 44 160 2.5944 0.00028 0.132678593
497 Gluconic acidb 20.8502,0 11 333 1.38921 0.094828 2.708045847
548 Noradrenalineb 22.2533,0 55 84 1.69914 0.097282 2.081636721
661 Phytosphingosineb 25.7827,0 29 84 1.81026 0.048436 6584.635105
675 Sucrosea 26.2919,0 12 66 1.77 0.076825 3.44555E-06
699 Trehaloseb 27.0453,0 30 191 1.7515 0.025149 0.172619279
703 Maltoseb 27.1762,0 42 160 2.25554 0.049032 3.39185E-05
725 Melibiose b 28.0361,0 45 73 1.83427 0.077231 7.49023791

aSignificant difference at 5 dpi.

bSignificant difference at 10 dpi.

SCN mortality assessment

Assessment of SCN mortality indicated that phytosphingosine and noradrenaline effectively induced SCN death (Table 3), showing mortality rates of 79.5% vs 84.0% and 70% vs 79% at 24 h and 48 h, respectively.

Table 3. Mortality of J2 SCN at 24 and 48 h after exposure to 500 μg/ml phytosphingosine and noradrenaline.

Treatment 24 h corrected J2 mortality % (mean ± SE) 48 h corrected J2 mortality % (mean ± SE)
Phytosphingosine 79.50 ± 0.18 84 ± 0.29
Noradrenaline 70 ± 0.19 79 ± 0.27

Discussion

In this study, the number of SCN in different stages at 5 dpi was comparable to our previous research [13]. Based on our analyses using GC-MS metabolic profiling, we found that Sneb545 treatment of soybean promoted metabolic resistance and identified 15 metabolites that contributed to SCN resistance.

The sedentary endoparasite cyst nematode, Heterodera schachtii, develops a highly specific and intricate host-pathogen interaction, which results in the formation of a syncytial feeding site in the root vascular tissue [14]. The cell wall between the initial syncytial cell and neighbouring cells gradually disappears to form a syncytial cell complex [13, 14]. Studies have discovered that sedentary cyst-forming nematodes directly access the phloem and feed on the sucrose that is present [15], which has shown to be the major source of carbohydrates in Arabidopsis thaliana roots [16]. H. schachtii juveniles are also dependent on sucrose supplied by transporters during feeding-site induction and establishment [17]. Invertases catalyse the hydrolysis of sucrose into fructose and glucose, which can be used by nematodes as a food source [18]. Our results indicated that sucrose, fructose, and trehalose were dramatically reduced in the Sneb545-treated soybean roots, suggesting that Sneb545 treatment reduces the nutrient source for nematodes and inhibits their development.

In addition to reducing the nutritional source of the nematodes, Sneb545 induced soybean roots to produce substances with nematocidal activity. There has been no direct evidence of nematocidal activity by melibiose and gluconic acid. However, these two substances are known to be present in different extracts that possess nematocidal activities [1921]. We demonstrated that melibiose and gluconic acid content were elevated in the Sneb545-treated group at 10 dpi, which may have enhanced nematocidal activity. Lactic acid has been shown to harbour nematocidal activity against plant-parasitic, free-living, and predacious nematodes [22] and has also been isolated from the culture filtrate of the YS1215 strain of Lysobacter capsica, showing nematocidal potential to control root-knot nematode [23]. Furthermore, we observed that the Sneb545 treatment group showed increased lactic acid content, thus possibly impeding nematode development. Phytosphingosine is a major sphingoid base from fungi and induces apoptosis in Aspergillus nidulans that is similar to the caspase-independent apoptosis observed in mammalian systems [24]. Phytosphingosine isolated from Bacillus cereus strain S2 shows nematocidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita and Caenorhabditis elegans [25]. We found 6,584-fold higher phytosphingosine content in the Sneb545-treated group compared with the control group, suggesting greatly enhanced resistance to SCN. Noradrenaline mediates responses to acute stress that result in decreased immune responses in mammals [26]. These chemical cues in the nervous system of C. elegans show comparable consequences for the immune system [27]. We demonstrated in our study that phytosphingosine and noradrenaline had nematocidal activity at a concentration of 500 μg/ml. Therefore, Sneb545-induced noradrenaline may disrupt the nervous system and immune system balance to promote an abnormal immune function in SCN and may disturb normal growth and development.

In addition to the effects outlined above, Sneb545 also improved the disease resistance of the plant to SCN. Studies have reported alternations in the metabolites of NIL 34–23 (resistant haplotype) and NIL 34–3 (susceptible haplotype) seeds due to SCN infection. Similarly, oxoproline, maltose, and galactose are lower in resistant soybean than in susceptible soybean [28] and agrees with our findings. Therefore, we speculate that Sneb545 treatment of soybean produces some qualities of SCN disease-resistant soybean variants.

In summary, differentially expressed metabolites were found between Sneb545-treated soybean roots and mock-treated soybean roots that had been inoculated with SCN. These metabolites improved the resistance of soybean to SCN in two ways by reducing nematode food sources and producing substances with nematocidal activity.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of different metabolites in CI group at 5dpi.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. List of different metabolites in TI group at 5dpi.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. List of different metabolites in CI group at 10dpi.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. List of different metabolites in TI group at 10dpi.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the teachers and students at Shenyang Agricultural University for their guidance and help. We are particularly grateful to Prof. Yuxi Duan for his assistance.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 313300630) and China Agriculture Research System (No. CARS-04-PS13).

References

  • 1.Choudhary DK, Johri BN. Interactions of Bacillus spp. and plants—with special reference to induced systemic resistance (ISR). Microbiological Research. 2009;164(5):493–513. 10.1016/j.micres.2008.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Xiang P, Chen L, Zhu X, Wang Y, Duan Y. Screening and Identification of Bacterium to Induce Resistance of Soybean against Heterodera glycines. Chinese Journal of Biological Control. 2013;29(4):661–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pathak R, Gehlot P, Singh S. Seed Priming-Mediated Induced Disease Resistance in Arid Zone Plants Microbial-mediated Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants: Springer; 2016. p. 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bali S, Kaur P, Sharma A, Ohri P, Bhardwaj R, Alyemeni M, et al. Jasmonic acid-induced tolerance to root-knot nematodes in tomato plants through altered photosynthetic and antioxidative defense mechanisms. Protoplasma. 2017:1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eloh K, Sasanelli N, Maxia A, Caboni P. Untargeted Metabolomics of Tomato Plants after Root-Knot Nematode Infestation. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 2016;64(29):5963–8. 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kihika R, Murungi LK, Coyne D. Parasitic nematode Meloidogyne incognita interactions with different Capsicum annum cultivars reveal the chemical constituents modulating root herbivory. Scientific Reports. 2017;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fiehn O, Kopka J, Dörmann P, Altmann T, Trethewey RN, Willmitzer L. Metabolite profiling for plant functional genomics. Nature Biotechnology. 2000;18(11):1157 10.1038/81137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Roessner U, Luedemann A, Brust D, Fiehn O, Linke T, Willmitzer L, et al. Metabolic Profiling Allows Comprehensive Phenotyping of Genetically or Environmentally Modified Plant Systems. Plant Cell. 2001;13(1):11–29. 10.1105/tpc.13.1.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lisec J, Schauer N, Kopka J, Willmitzer L, Fernie AR. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry-based metabolite profiling in plants. Nature protocols. 2006;1(1):387 10.1038/nprot.2006.59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wuyts N, Lognay G, Swennen R, Waele DD. Nematode infection and reproduction in transgenic and mutant Arabidopsis and tobacco with an altered phenylpropanoid metabolism. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2006;57(11):2825 10.1093/jxb/erl044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Macguidwin AE, Bird GW, Safir GR. Influence of Glomus fasciculatum on Meloidogyne hapla Infecting Allium cepa. Journal of Nematology. 1985;17(4):389 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Xiang N, Lawrence KS. Optimization of In Vitro Techniques for Distinguishing between Live and Dead Second Stage Juveniles of Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyne incognita. Plos One. 2016;11(5):e0154818 10.1371/journal.pone.0154818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grundler FM, Sobczak M, Golinowski W. Formation of wall openings in root cells of Arabidopsis thaliana following infection by the plant-parasitic nematode Heterodera schachtii. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 1998;104(6):545–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Golinowski W, Grundler F, Sobczak M. Changes in the structure ofArabidopsis thaliana during female development of the plant-parasitic nematodeHeterodera schachtii. Protoplasma. 1996;194(1–2):103–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bockenhoff A, Prior DA, Grundler FM, Oparka KJ. Induction of phloem unloading in Arabidopsis thaliana roots by the parasitic nematode Heterodera schachtii. Plant Physiology. 1996;112(4):1421–7. 10.1104/pp.112.4.1421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cabello S, Lorenz C, Crespo S, Cabrera J, Ludwig R, Escobar C, et al. Altered sucrose synthase and invertase expression affects the local and systemic sugar metabolism of nematode-infected Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014;65(1):201 10.1093/jxb/ert359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hofmann J, Grundler FMW. Sucrose supply to nematode-induced syncytia depends on the apoplasmic and symplasmic pathways. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007;58(7):1591–601. 10.1093/jxb/erl285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Danchin EG, Guzeeva EA, Mantelin S, Berepiki A, Jones JT. Horizontal gene transfer from bacteria has enabled the plant-parasitic nematode Globodera pallida to feed on host-derived sucrose. Molecular Biology & Evolution. 2016;33(6):1571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li M, Hong CY, Yan WX, Chao ZS, Gang YC, Ling DJ, et al. Bacillus zanthoxyli sp. nov., a novel nematicidal bacterium isolated from Chinese red pepper (Zanthoxylum bungeanum Maxim) leaves in China. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2017:1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu J, Yang L-L, Xu C-K, Xi J-Q, Yang F-X, Zhou F, et al. Sphingobacterium nematocida sp. nov., a nematicidal endophytic bacterium isolated from tobacco. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology. 2012;62(8):1809–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang L-L, Huang Y, Liu J, Ma L, Mo M-H, Li W-J, et al. Lysinibacillus mangiferahumi sp. nov., a new bacterium producing nematicidal volatiles. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2012;102(1):53–9. 10.1007/s10482-012-9712-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Abdel-Rahman FH, Clark S, Saleh MA. Natural organic compounds as alternative to methyl bromide for nematodes control. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B. 2008;43(8):680–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lee YS, Naning KW, Nguyen XH, Kim SB, Moon JH, Kim KY. Ovicidal activity of lactic acid produced by Lysobacter capsici YS1215 on eggs of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;24(11):1510–5. 10.4014/jmb.1405.05014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cheng J, Park T-S, Chio L-C, Fischl AS, Xiang SY. Induction of apoptosis by sphingoid long-chain bases in Aspergillus nidulans. Molecular and cellular biology. 2003;23(1):163–77. 10.1128/mcb.23.1.163-177.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gao H, Qi G, Yin R, Zhang H, Li C, Zhao X. Bacillus cereus strain S2 shows high nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita by producing sphingosine. Scientific reports. 2016;6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Saint-Mezard P, Chavagnac C, Bosset S, Ionescu M, Peyron E, Kaiserlian D, et al. Psychological stress exerts an adjuvant effect on skin dendritic cell functions in vivo. Journal of Immunology. 2003;171(8):4073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aballay A. Role of the Nervous System in the Control of Proteostasis during Innate Immune Activation: Insights from C. elegans. PLoS pathogens. 2013;9(8):e1003433 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Afzal AJ, Natarajan A, Saini N, Iqbal MJ, Geisler M, El Shemy HA, et al. The nematode resistance allele at the rhg1 locus alters the proteome and primary metabolism of soybean roots. Plant Physiology. 2009;151(3):1264–80. 10.1104/pp.109.138149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hon-Ming Lam

19 May 2020

PONE-D-20-07320

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defense against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kang,

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 also arrange professional English editing for this manuscript to improve its language clarity.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 03 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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. 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

[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: Yes

**********

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 article : Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defense against soybean cyst

nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS is well written. The content is easy to follow and the methodologies are clearly stated. However, feature extractions of metabolites (relatively low coverage nowadays but acceptable) could be improved.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports the results from a pot experiment and revealed the effects of Bacillus inoculation on root metabolic changes in soybean plants infected with cyst nematodes (SCN). The findings showed that the bacterial inoculation functioned in three different aspects: reduced food source, produced nematocidal substances and improved disease-resistance ability. The main concern is that only one soybean cultivar, one bacterial strain, and one isolate of cyst nematode were used in this study. Another concern is the language writing which needs further improvements throughout the manuscript (lots of typos and grammatical errors). Some other specific comments:

L. 47-50: the objective is quite general. It would be good to add hypotheses of this study.

L. 59: not clear of how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds

L. 67: not clear of the seedling age or growth stage at the time of inoculation with SCN

L. 70: plants were assessed at 5 and 10 days after inoculation: not sure if such short period was enough for observing interactions between the bacteria and SCN

L. 81: samples of roots?

L. 74: ‘Liaodou15’ here, but ‘Liao15’ in L. 58. Use one and be consistent throughout the manuscript

L. 77-78: last sentence on data analysis can be removed to the “Data analysis” section

L. 107-114: put this section last, i.e. before the ‘Results’ section to include all acquired data in this study in addition to the spectrometry data, such as ANOVA for nematode numbers etc.

L. 129: significant level? The statistical analysis was not mentioned in the M&M section.

L. 130-131: delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section.

**********

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 Aug 6;15(8):e0237194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237194.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Jun 2020

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS”(PONE-D-20-07320). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the editors and reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the editor’s comments:

1. We have found the professional English editing for this manuscript to improve its language clarity. And we have different treatment manuscript labeled followed the 'Response to Reviewers', 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' and 'Manuscript'.

2. We have deposited our laboratory protocols in protocols.io.

DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bhbpj2mn

3. We have added the first author’s ORCID.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2:

1. Response to comment: L. 47-50: the objective is quite general. It would be good to add hypotheses of this study.

Reply: We added the hypotheses of this study that “We hypothesized that bacteria could improve soybean resistance to nematode infection by inducing the soybean plant roots to produce substances with nematode killing activity or inhibiting the nematode’s growth and development.” in L.53-56.

2. Response to comment: L. 59: not clear of how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds.

Reply: We explain the methods how the bacteria inoculum were coated to the seeds in L.66-67 “Subsequently, the seeds were washed with 70% ethanol and 1% of the seeds were coated with Sneb545.”

3. Response to comment: L. 67: not clear of the seedling age or growth stage at the time of inoculation with SCN.

Reply: L.77-78 When two true leaves were grown from soybean, the root of soybean was inoculated with soybean cyst nematode.

4. Response to comment: L. 70: plants were assessed at 5 and 10 days after inoculation: not sure if such short period was enough for observing interactions between the bacteria and SCN

Reply: L79: After the previous observation on the development of nematode in soybean root under the microscope, we found that there were four larvae at 10 days after nematode infected soybean, so although the difference was only 5 days, the development state of nematode in these two time points was obviously different.

5. Response to comment: L. 81: samples of roots?

Reply: Yes. The sample is root tissue of the soybean.

6. Response to comment: L. 74: ‘Liaodou15’ here, but ‘Liao15’ in L. 58. Use one and be consistent throughout the manuscript

Reply: We have changed the L.84‘Liaodou15’ into‘Liao15’.

7. Response to comment: L. 77-78: last sentence on data analysis can be removed to the “Data analysis” section

Reply: We removed the L.77-78 last sentence on data analysis to the “Statistical analysis” section in L.120-121 “The nematode infection and mortality data were examined using Student’s t-test in SPSS 17.0 (IBM, USA) and a P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.”

8. Response to comment: L. 107-114: put this section last, i.e. before the ‘Results’ section to include all acquired data in this study in addition to the spectrometry data, such as ANOVA for nematode numbers etc.

Reply: We put this section ‘Statistical analysis’ before the‘Results’ section in L.120-128.

9. Response to comment: L. 129: significant level? The statistical analysis was not mentioned in the M&M section.

Reply: We added the statistical analysis in the ‘Statistical analysis’ section in L.121-123.

10. Response to comment: L. 130-131: delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section.

Reply: We delete this sentence and move it to Discussion section in L.162-163.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hon-Ming Lam

30 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-07320R1

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kang,

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 14 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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This manuscript needs a thorough English polishing. The authors may consider to get professional English editing service.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: The authors have attended all comments and carefully revised the manuscirpt. Higher resolution / better quality of figures are required for the publications. The writing language has been largely imporved in the R1. However, there are still many language problems requiring further improvements. Let's take the first paragraph of the Introduction section as examples:

L. 33: change "Soybean has a high protein and oil content" to "Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content".

L. 34 "which place high importance on its production yield" is not clear.

L. 36 "can hinder its growth and production": not clear of "its" - just use "soybean", and can be changed to "can hinder the growth and production of soybean".

L. 39-40: "Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonises the rhizosphere of" should use "colonise".

L. 42-44: replace "Our past studies have discovered the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex that can enhance soybean resistance to SCN" with "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN"

.....

**********

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: Yes: Yinglong Chen

[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 Aug 6;15(8):e0237194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237194.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Jul 2020

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS”(PONE-D-20-07320). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the editors and reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2:

1. Response to comment: Higher resolution/better quality of figures are required for the publications.

Reply: We enhanced the resolution to 300*300 of the figures .

2. Response to comment: change "Soybean has a high protein and oil content" to "Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content".

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “Soybean seeds contain high protein and oil content” in L.33

3. Response to comment: L. 34 "which place high importance on its production yield" is not clear.

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “This places a high importance on efficient production of soybean with a high yield” in L. 34.

4. Response to comment: L. 36 "can hinder its growth and production": not clear of "its" - just use "soybean", and can be changed to "can hinder the growth and production of soybean".

Reply: We have changed the sentence to “can hinder the growth and production of soybean” in L.37.

5. Response to comment: L. 39-40: "Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonises the rhizosphere of" should use "colonise".

Reply: We have changed the word to “colonise” in L.41.

6. Response to comment: L. 42-44: replace "Our past studies have discovered the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex that can enhance soybean resistance to SCN" with "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN"

Reply: We have changed the sentence to "Our past studies have discovered that the Sneb545 strain of Bacillus simplex enhanced soybean resistance to SCN" in L.43-45.

7. We also modified the other language problems in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changges’.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Hon-Ming Lam

22 Jul 2020

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

PONE-D-20-07320R2

Dear Dr. Kang,

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,

Hon-Ming Lam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hon-Ming Lam

28 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-07320R2

Bacillus simplex treatment promotes soybean defence against soybean cyst nematodes: A metabolomics study using GC-MS

Dear Dr. Kang:

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. Hon-Ming Lam

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 different metabolites in CI group at 5dpi.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. List of different metabolites in TI group at 5dpi.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. List of different metabolites in CI group at 10dpi.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. List of different metabolites in TI group at 10dpi.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.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