Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0255470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255470

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

Phuong Nguyen Duy 1,#, Dai Tran Lan 1,2,#, Hang Pham Thu 1, Huong Phung Thi Thu 1, Ha Nguyen Thanh 1, Ngoc Phuong Pham 1,¤, Florence Auguy 3, Huong Bui Thi Thu 4, Tran Bao Manh 5, Sebastien Cunnac 3, Xuan Hoi Pham 1,*
Editor: R M Sundaram6
PMCID: PMC8428762  PMID: 34499670

Abstract

TBR225 is one of the most popular commercial rice varieties in Northern Vietnam. However, this variety is highly susceptible to bacterial leaf blight (BLB), a disease caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo) which can lead to important yield losses. OsSWEET14 belongs to the SWEET gene family that encodes sugar transporters. Together with other Clade III members, it behaves as a susceptibility (S) gene whose induction by Asian Xoo Transcription-Activator-Like Effectors (TALEs) is absolutely necessary for disease. In this study, we sought to introduce BLB resistance in the TBR225 elite variety. First, two Vietnamese Xoo strains were shown to up-regulate OsSWEET14 upon TBR225 infection. To investigate if this induction is connected with disease susceptibility, nine TBR225 mutant lines with mutations in the AvrXa7, PthXo3 or TalF TALEs DNA target sequences of the OsSWEET14 promoter were obtained using the CRISPR/Cas9 editing system. Genotyping analysis of T0 and T1 individuals showed that mutations were stably inherited. None of the examined agronomic traits of three transgene-free T2 edited lines were significantly different from those of wild-type TBR225. Importantly, one of these T2 lines, harboring the largest homozygous 6-bp deletion, displayed decreased OsSWEET14 expression as well as a significantly reduced susceptibility to a Vietnamese Xoo strains and complete resistance to another one. Our findings indicate that CRISPR/Cas9 editing conferred an improved BLB resistance to a Vietnamese commercial elite rice variety.

Introduction

Bacterial leaf blight (BLB) caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo) is a major bacterial disease that causes 10%-20% annual reduction in rice production worldwide [1]. The use of improved rice varieties resistant to Xoo is probably the most efficient, economical and environmentally-friendly way to control BLB.

The virulence of Xoo depends on the transcriptional activation of specific host disease-susceptibility (S) genes by a subgroup of bacterial type III effectors, called transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs) [2]. Upon translocation into the plant cell, TALEs bind to specific host nuclear gene promoter sequences termed Effector-Binding Elements (EBEs) and induce target gene expression to the benefit of the pathogen. The central repetitive domain of TALEs is responsible for DNA target sequence binding. DNA binding involves recognition principles that have been largely deciphered and applied to the computational prediction of TALEs target DNA sequences [3,4]. This and earlier work has fostered the identification of TALEs transcriptional targets in the rice genome and ultimately, of rice BLB S genes [2].

All Xoo strains recurrently target S genes belonging to the SWEET gene family and coding for transmembrane sugar exporter proteins [3]. The over accumulation of SWEETs due to TALE induction is presumed to provide an additional ration of apoplastic carbohydrates for full bacterial pathogen multiplication and disease expression [5]. Although all five rice clade III SWEET genes can function as S genes for bacterial blight, only three, namely OsSWEET11, OsSWEET13 and OsSWEET14, are known to be targeted by several unrelated TALEs in nature [611]. OsSWEET11 is activated by PthXo1 [6], OsSWEET13 is targeted by different variants of PthXo2 [11,12], while OsSWEET14 is a target of multiple TAL effectors, including AvrXa7, PthXo3, TalC and TalF [79].

Previous studies established that rice resistance to Xoo resulting from "TALE-unresponsive" alleles can be conferred by natural DNA polymorphisms or targeted editing of EBEs located in OsSWEET genes promoters of rice germplasm accessions or engineered rice varieties, respectively [6,1316]. For example, early resistance engineering work has used TALENs to individually alter the AvrXa7, TalC or TalF EBEs in the OsSWEET14 promoter and successfully obtained resistance to some Asian Xoo strains [13,15]. However, strains collected in Asian countries such as China, Japan, Phillippines, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Nepal or South Korea can express combinations of up to three major TALEs redundantly targeting clade III OsSWEET genes with either PthXo3 or AvrXa7 being occasionally associated with PthXo2 [11,17]. Broad BLB resistance engineering thus required multiplex OsSWEET promoters EBE editing using the CRISPR/Cas9 system [11,12].

The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease (CRISPR/Cas9) system is a simple and efficient gene-editing tool developed in the past few years [18,19]. Moreover, the targeted mutations generated by CRISPR/Cas9 can be stably transmitted to the next generation. Thus, CRISPR/Cas9 has become a routine tool in plant laboratories around the world to create various mutants for many applications, including the genetic improvement of crops [20].

BLB is a major rice disease which occurs in many rice cultivating areas of Vietnam [21,22]. Most Vietnamese commercial rice varieties, including TBR225, are susceptible to BLB, resulting in annual yield loss of about 15–30% on average [23]. A few studies have identified rice resistance genes effective against Vietnamese Xoo lineages [22,23]. However, no information is currently available on the nature of Vietnamese Xoo TALEs and their corresponding S genes. Despite the large number of mapped rice BLB resistance genes [24,25], there is a need for alternative breeding approaches that enable the rapid introduction of broad BLB resistance in elite varieties in order to cope with swift pathogen populations adaptive shifts in the fields [11,26].

Here, we report on the identification of OsSWEET14 as a transcriptional target of Vietnamese Xoo. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of the OsSWEET14 promoter in TBR225, a major elite variety in rice production areas of North Vietnam, is shown to confer BLB resistance without detectable yield penalty. The current study found this quintessential S gene to be associated with the virulence of Vietnamese Xoo strains. This is an important step for the future design and implementation of broad-spectrum BLB-resistance in elite rice varieties using genome editing in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

Plant and pathogen materials

Rice cultivar TBR225 (Oryza sativa L. ssp. indica) were obtained from ThaiBinh Seed Cor. [27]. All edited and wild-type (WT) TBR225 plants were grown in a net-house under the following average conditions: 30°C for 14 h (light) and 25°C for 10 h (dark) with 80% humidity. The Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains used in this study were isolated from diseased leaves collected in Hanoi-Vietnam in 2013 and 2016, respectively. Bacteria were cultured as described in Zhou et al. (2015) [28].

Gene expression analysis

Gene expression analyses were carried out as described previously [29] by RT-PCR method. The rice leaves were infiltrated with the indicated bacterial strains and used for total RNA extraction 48 h post inoculation using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, USA). One microgram of RNA was used for each RT-PCR with oligo (dT) primer followed by PCR with OsSWEET14-specific primers (forward 5′-ACTTGCAAGCAAGAACAGTAGT-3′ and reverse 5′-ATGTTGCCTAGGAGACCAAAGG-3′). An Eppendorf Mastercycler ep Gradient S was used for 35 PCR cycles. The OsEF1α gene was used as a constitutive control [15] using specific primers (forward 5′-GAAGTCTCATCCTACCTGAAGAAG-3′ and reverse 5′-GTCAAGAGCCTCAAGCAAGG-3′).

gRNA design

The OsSWEET14 promoter (GenBank, accession number: AP014967.1) was amplified by PCR with forward primer 5’-TTGCGGCTCATCAGTTTCTC-3’ and reverse primer 5’-CTAGGAGACCAAAGGCGAAG-3’ from genomic DNA of TBR225 rice plants and ligated in pGEM-T Easy vector (Promega) for sequencing. The gRNA target sequence (Fig 1A) for editing the TBR225 OsSWEET14 promoter was designed based on the sequence of the cloned TBR225 OsSWEET14 promoter using a combination of two bioinformatics tools CRISPR-P v2.0 [30] and CCTop [31]. A gRNA sequence with high on-target and low off-target scores in both prediction tools was chosen for vector construction.

Fig 1. CRISPR/Cas9-induced OsSWEET14 promoter modification in TBR225 rice.

Fig 1

(A) A region of the OsSWEET14 promoter containing four EBEs (TalC, PthXo3, AvrXa7 and TalF) and putative TATA box from TBR225. The target site (complementary to the guide RNA) is shown in the box, immediately following the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM). (B) T-DNA region of the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing construct carrying OsSWEET14-sgRNA (indicated by the black box). The expression of Cas9 is driven by the maize ubiquitin promoter (P-Ubi); the expression of the OsSWEET14-sgRNA is driven by the rice OsU6 promoter (P-OsU6a); the expression of HPT is driven by two CaMV35S promoters (P-2×35S); T-35S, T-Nos and TTTTTT: Gene terminators; LB and RB: Left and right border, respectively. (C) Alignment of the OsSWEET14 promoter fragment in the nine T0 transgenic TBR225 rice plants edited in the AvrXa7, PthXo3 and TalF EBEs. The lines on top of the wild-type sequence represent the binding sites of AvrXa7, PthXo3 and TalF. The arrow indicates the expected cutting site of the Cas9 complex used in this study. The labels on the left indicate the name of examined mutant lines; (a1) and (a2) distinguish alleles in the same line. The numbers on the right indicate the type of mutation and the number of nucleotides involved; (+) and (-) indicate insertion and deletion, respectively.

Vector construction

The Cas9 rice expression vector (pUbi-Cas9) [32] and the sgRNA expression vector (pENTR-sgRNA) under the control of the OsU6 promoter [33] were used to construct the pCas9/OsSWEET14-gRNA expression vector. The complementary oligonucleotides with appropriate 4-bp overhangs were synthesized by Macrogen (Korea). After heat denaturation, the complementary oligonucleotides (5′-gtgtGGTGCTAAGCTCATCAAGCC-3’ and 5′-aaacGGCTTGATGAGCTTAGCACC-3’) were first annealed to each other, phosphorylated, and ligated into the BsaI-digested vector pENTR-sgRNA. The integrity of the inserted fragment was verified by sequencing. Subsequently, the sgRNA cassette was cloned into pUbi-Cas9 using the Gateway LR clonase (Life Technologies) (Fig 1B). The resulting construct was confirmed by Sanger sequencing of the insertion junctions.

Agrobacterium-mediated rice transformation

The pCas9-OsSWEET14-gRNA was electroporated into Agrobacterium tumefaciens EHA105 and the resulting strain was used to transform rice using the method described by Hiei et al. (1994) [34]. The presence of the transgene in the genome of T0 hygromycin-resistant plants or segregating T1 individuals was evaluated by PCR using 5′-ATGGCCCCAAAGAAGAAG-3′ and 5′- GCCTCGGCTGTCTCGCCA-3′ primers specific for Cas9. T1 individuals were analyzed by PCR using Cas9, OsSWEET14-gRNA (5′- GGATCATGAACCAACG-3′ and 5′- GAATTCGATATCAAGCTT-3′) and HPT (5’-AAACTGTGATGGACGACACCGT-3’ and 5′- GTGGCGATCCTGCAAGCTCC -3′) specific diagnostic primer pairs together with a positive control pair (5′-TTGCGGCTCATCAGTTTCTC-3′ and 5′- TGGATCAGATCAAAGGCAAC -3′) specific to the OsSWEET14 promoter.

Bacterial blight inoculation

Rice cultivation and disease assays were done according to the methods of Blanvillain-Baufumé et al. (2017) [15]. Bacteria were cultured in PSA media (10 g/liter peptone, 10 g/liter sucrose, 1 g/liter glutamic acid, 15 g/liter Bacto Agar) at 28°C for two days [35] and inoculated at an optical density (OD600) of 0.5 (infiltrations) or 0.4 (leaf clipping) in water. For lesion length measurements, at least three inoculated leaves per plant and three plants for each line were measured 14 days after inoculation (DAI), and scored as follows: high resistance (lesion length < 8 cm), moderate resistance (lesion length 8–12 cm) and susceptibility (lesion length > 12 cm). For gene expression analyses, 4-cm leaf sections infiltrated with bacterial suspensions were collected at 48 h after inoculation for RNA extraction. Experiments included samples from three pooled biological replicate leaves. The plants inoculated with distilled water only were used as negative controls.

Analysis of OsSWEET14 edited allele sequences

To determine the nature of the mutation at the target site, all transgenic T0 or T1 plants were analyzed by PCR using genomic DNA (50 ng) as a template and OsSWEET14 specific primers (5′-TTGCGGCTCATCAGTTTCTC-3′ and 5′- TGGATCAGATCAAAGGCAAC -3′). The PCR products were directly sequenced using the Sanger method. The sequencing chromatograms were decoded using the Degenerate Sequence Decoding method [36] in order to identify the mutations.

Evaluation of major agronomic traits under net-house conditions

WT and selected mutant plants were planted under net-house conditions in a randomized pot design experiment. At maturity, five plants of each line were investigated for the following agronomic traits: growth duration, plant height, number of tillers per plant, number of grains per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle and yield (seed mass) per plant. The experiment was repeated three times, so a total of fifteen plants were evaluated for each line.

Analysis of potential off-target editing

Off-target sequences were predicted with the CCTop tool [31] against the OsSWEET14 promoter sgRNA and the rice Nipponbare genome with default parameters. A total of 18 potential off-target sequences were identified. Three of them were located in coding regions (S2 Table). These regions were amplified by PCR using the specific primers listed in S2 Table and analyzed by sequencing.

Results

Vietnamese Xoo strains induce OsSWEET14 during infection of the TBR225 rice variety

OsSWEET14/Os11N3 was previously identified as a susceptibility gene for Xoo strains relying on either of the AvrXa7, PthXo3, TalF (formerly Tal5) or TalC TALEs for infection of the rice cultivars Nipponbare and Kitaake [11]. Because Xoo strains tend to frequently target this gene, we first sequenced a region of the OsSWEET14 promoter from rice cultivar TBR225 to examine if it also carries documented target EBEs. Based on the Nipponbare genome sequence in database (AP014967.1), the region encompassing 1343 bp sequence upstream and 52 bp sequence downstream of the predicted transcription start site of OsSWEET14 gene from TRB225 rice cultivar was PCR amplified and sequenced (S1 Fig). The promoter region including the putative TATA box (TATAAA) and the AvrXa7, PthXo3, TalF/Tal5 and TalC EBEs (Fig 1A), located 319 bp to 216 bp upstream of the ATG initiation codon, showed 100% identity to the Nipponbare sequence. This therefore implied that in principle, the TBR225 OsSWEET14 promoter can be recognized by characterized major Xoo TALEs.

As shown in Fig 2A, we also challenged TBR225 plants with two Vietnamese Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15, both originating from the Hanoi province, using leaf clipping assays. We consistently obtained typical extended disease lesions 14 days after inoculation (25.5 cm and 26.6 cm average lesions length for VXO_11 and VXO_15, respectively in the experiment of S2 Fig), indicating that the TBR225 variety is susceptible to BLB.

Fig 2. OsSWEET14 is likely a susceptibility gene for Vietnamese Xoo strains in rice cultivar TBR225.

Fig 2

(A) Representative images of the disease lesions obtained 14 days after leaf clipping inoculation of TBR225 rice leaves with Vietnamese Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15 or with water (CT). The chevrons above the leaves indicate the maximum visible extent of lesions away from the inoculation point on the left (B). OsSWEET14 expression pattern obtained by RT-PCR two day post-infiltration of TBR225 rice leaves with Vietnamese Xoo strains. CT Plants were inoculated with water only. The experiment was repeated three times.

To test if OsSWEET14 is a potential direct virulence target of Vietnamese Xoo strains, we infiltrated TBR225 rice leaves with the two Vietnamese Xoo strains. Forty-eight hours post infiltration, TBR225 plants inoculated with VXO strains displayed a strong induction of OsSWEET14 relative to water controls (Fig 2B). These results suggest that OsSWEET14 is a transcriptional target of VXO strains and that it may act as a susceptibility gene in TBR225.

CRISPR/Cas9 design for OsSWEET14 promoter editing

Our main objective was to engineer resistance to BLB caused by Vietnamese Xoo strains. To this end, we subsequently sought to specifically modify the OsSWEET14 promoter in TBR225 rice with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing. Previous work revealed that while African Xoo strains rely on TalC and occasionally, TalF, all Asian Xoo strains use either PthXo3- or AvrXa7-like TALEs to activate OsSWEET14 [11]. Because the talC gene is currently exclusively found in African strains, we reasoned that it is unlikely that Vietnamese strains carry a talC copy. Thus, to maximize our chances to perturb all remaining documented EBEs, we selected a 20-bp nucleotide target site overlapping the PthXo3, AvrXa7 and TalF EBEs and having a predicted cut site located near the 3’-end of the AvrXa7 EBE (Fig 1A). The recombinant binary plasmid pCas9/OsSWEET14-gRNA for CRISPR/Cas9 mediated editing of OsSWEET14 was transformed into the rice variety TBR225 via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (S1 Table). A total of nine TBR225 transformants were selected from 10 independent PCR-validated transgenic T0 TBR225 plants to further investigate CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the OsSWEET14 promoter. In order to decipher the nature of the editing events in OsSWEET14, the promoter sequencing data of transgenic lines were analyzed using the Degenerate Sequence Decoding software [36]. All 9 T0 transgenic plants harbored at least an editing event (Fig 1C): two were heterozygous mutant/wild type, two had homozygous mutations, and five had bi-allelic mutations. Regarding the type of mutations, 66.7% were nucleotide deletions, 11.1% of the mutations were nucleotide insertions and no substitution was detected (Table 1).

Table 1. Frequencies of mutant genotypes and target mutation types in T0 transgenic plants.

Mutant genotype ratiosa (%) Mutation type ratiosb (%)
Heterozygote Homozygote Bi-allelic Deletion Insertion Substitution
22.2 (2/9) 22.2 (2/9) 55.6 (5/9) 66.7 (12/18) 11.1 (2/18) 0 (0/18)

a (Number of on-target mutant genotype/total number of on-target mutant genotypes) x 100%.

b (Number of allele mutation type/number of all allele mutation types) x 100%.

Inheritance of CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in the T1 generation

To assess the inheritance of the CRISPR/Cas9-induced OsSWEET14 mutations in the next generation, all T0 mutant transgenic plants (Fig 1C) were allowed to self-pollinate, and T1 transgenic plants were randomly selected in the progeny of T0 plants for sequencing and analysis of their edited site (Table 2). All T1 individuals derived from T0 plants previously genotyped as homozygous possessed the same allele as their parent, suggesting stable inheritance of the mutations to the next generation. Similarly, the T1 progeny of each of both bi-allelic and heterozygous mutation T0 lines showed a segregation ratio which is consistent with Mendelian segregation (χ2 < χ20.05, 2 = 5.99), indicating that the CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in T0 plants were transmitted as expected to the next generation. Interestingly, no new mutant allele was detected in the T1 generation of both heterozygous mutants L-21 and L-27, even though most of them still carried the transgene. Overall, consistent with previous similar studies, our results indicate that the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutations generated here are stably transmitted to the next generation in a Medelian fashion.

Table 2. Transmission of CRISPR/Cas9 editing events to the T1 generation.

T0 plant Genotype Allele(s) No. of T1 plants tested Mutation inheritance in the T1 generation No. of T-DNA-free plants
Alleles segregation χ2 (1:2:1)
L-4 Bi-allelic -5/-3 32 10 (-5), 18 (-5/-3), 4 (-3) 2,750 5 (2*)
L-5 Bi-allelic -6/+1 44 9 (-6), 22 (-6/+1), 13 (+1) 0,727 10 (2*)
L-7 Bi-allelic -4/-3 38 14 (-4), 17 (-4/-3), 7 (-3) 3,000 11 (4*)
L-15 Homozygote +1 5 5 (+1) - 1 (1*)
L-21 Heterozygote -3 26 3 (-3), 13 (-3/wt), 10 (wt) 3,769 7 (1*)
L-27 Bi-allelic -5/-4 7 1 (-5), 3(-5/-4), 3 (-4) 1,286 0
L-29 Heterozygote -5 33 6 (-5), 19 (-5/wt), 8 (wt) 1,000 2 (0*)
L-31 Homozygote -3 15 15 (-3) - 5 (5*)
L-54 Bi-allelic -3/-2 21 3 (-3), 12 (-3/-2), 6(-2) 1,286 3 (0*)

“+” and “-” indicate respectively, insertion and deletion, of the indicated number of nucleotides.

“w”, wild type.

*Number of homozygous mutant plants without T-DNA.

Selection of transgene-free mutant TBR225 rice lines

To identify T-DNA free T1 rice plants containing a mutation in EBEs of the OsSWEET14 promoter, PCR analysis was carried out using primers specific to Cas9, sgRNA and HPT sequences (Table 2). A T1 individual was considered devoid of the transgene if the control amplification of the OsSWEET14 promoter was successful and if none of the PCR reactions with independent primer pairs designed on the T-DNA produced a detectable diagnostic band. The results of this PCR screen show that the T-DNA could be segregated out in the progeny of most T0 lines, with 88.9% of the T0 lines generating T-DNA-free progeny. In total, 44 of 221 analyzed edited T1 plants did not generate a specific amplicon from the T-DNA construct and 15 of them were homozygous mutant harboring the desired OsSWEET14 modifications. Our results demonstrate that transgene-free, homozygous mutant individuals could be obtained in the segregating progeny of selfed T0 individuals.

TBR225 OsSWEET14 promoter editing confers resistance to Vietnamese Xoo

To characterize the BLB-resistance phenotype of the generated rice mutants, three T-DNA-free, homozygous TBR225 edited lines, namely, L-5.7(-6), L-31.12(-3) and L-15.4(+1) with OsSWEET14 promoter alleles corresponding respectively to L-5-a1 (6bp deletion), L-31 (3bp deletion) and L-15 (1bp insertion) in Fig 1C, were established. Selected T1 individuals were propagated to obtain T2 seeds which were used to perform BLB susceptibility assays. Edited T2 and WT TBR225 plants were inoculated by leaf-clipping with the VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains at the eight-week stage. The inoculated leaves of wild type TBR225 plants and of edited lines L-15.4(+1) and L-31.12(-3) developed long water-soaked lesions typical of BLB, ranging from 18.3 cm to 29.0 cm in length. In contrast, the edited line L-5.7(-6), harboring a longer 6-bp deletion at the target site, displayed high (1.2 cm average lesion length) and moderate (7.3 cm average lesion length) resistance to VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains, respectively (Fig 3). Means comparisons with a Tukey’s HSD test further indicated that irrespective of the inoculated strain, the mean lesion lengths measured on the L-15.4(+1), L-31.12(-3) or wild type lines were not significantly different. In contrast, the mean lesion lengths recorded on the L-5.7(-6) mutant line were significantly different from those obtained on the wild type and the two other edited lines challenged with either of the Vietnamese strains (Fig 3B). Furthermore, our off-target editing analysis on line L-5.7(-6) did not reveal unintended modifications of other annotated rice loci (S2 Table and S5 Fig), indicating that the 6-bp deletion in the OsSWEET14 promoter is probably responsible for this phenotype.

Fig 3. BLB resistance assays for homozygous mutant rice lines L-5.7(-6), L-15.4(+1) and L-31.12(-3).

Fig 3

(A) Leaves were photographed 14 days post-leaf clipping inoculation of Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15; arrow heads indicate the end of the lesion. (B) Mean lesion lengths (bars) and standard deviations (error bars). Values were measured 14 days post-leaf clipping inoculation of two Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15 and were computed from at least three leaves from each of three plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences relative to wild type plants (Tukey’s HSD test; **P < 0.05). The number in the parentheses following the line name indicates the type of mutation and the number of nucleotides involved. The letters above strain labels indicate susceptibility score (R—high resistance; M–moderate resistance; S—susceptibility). The experiment was repeated three times. (C) OsSWEET14 expression pattern obtained by RT-PCR two day post-infiltration of genome edited homozygous mutant rice lines L-31.12(-3), L-15.4(+1) and L-5.7(-6) and parental TBR225 rice leaves with Vietnamese Xoo strains. This experiment was repeated two times with similar results.

Consistent with disease assays and as shown in Fig 3C, whereas a semiquantitative RT-PCR signal for OsSWEET14 expression was detected on the parental variety and the L-15.4(+1) and L-31.12(-3) edited lines following VXO_11 and VXO_15 infiltration, this amplicon was undetectable in the resistant L-5.7(-6) line.

In conclusion, this data shows that the 6-bp deletion in the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE reduces dramatically OsSWEET14 expression following VXO strains inoculation and confers resistance to these strains. In contrast, shorter modifications on the 3’-end of this EBE are insufficient to perturb OsSWEET14 expression after inoculation and do not confer detectable protection against the corresponding strains. Finally, while these results strongly support the view that OsSWEET14 functions as a unique susceptibility gene in the interaction between strain VXO_11 and the TBR225 rice variety, the resistance to strain VXO_15 is not as dramatic and may suggest that other mechanisms partially counteract the effects of the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE 6-bp deletion in edited TBR225 plants.

TBR225 OsSWEET14 promoter edited lines agronomic performances are undistinguishable from the parental variety

To determine if mutations in the OsSWEET14 promoter affect agronomic traits of TRB225 rice plants, three independent homozygous mutant lines were analyzed by measuring their growth duration, plant height, number of tillers per plant, number of grains per panicle, number of filled grains per panicle, yield per plant and amylose content under net-house conditions (see picture of S3 Fig). ANOVA tests and Student’s t tests showed that the mutant lines displayed no significant difference to TBR225, in terms of the examined agronomic traits, under our net-house conditions (Table 3). These results suggest that the tested CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in the OsSWEET14 promoter did not negatively impact the main agronomic traits of TBR225.

Table 3. Agronomic traits evaluation of homozygous T2 mutant lines.

Lines Growth duration (day) Plant height (cm) No. of tillers per plant No. of grains per panicle No. of filled grains per panicle Amylose content (%)
WT 108.4 ± 1.1a 86.6 ± 3.2a 5 ± 0.7a 144.4 ± 4.9a 125 ± 4.5a 13.2 ± 0.38a
L-5.7(-6) 108 ± 1.2a 86.4 ± 4.3a 5.2 ± 0.4a 144.2 ± 4.4a 123.4 ± 5.5a 13.7 ± 0.35a
L-15.4(+1) 107.8 ± 0.8a 86.4 ± 5.0a 4.8 ± 0.4a 147.8 ± 5.1a 121.8 ± 3.0a 13.5 ± 0.41a
L-31.12(-3) 108 ± 1.2a 88.4 ± 4.3a 5.4 ± 0.5a 144.6 ± 5.3a 124.2 ± 7.4a 13.8 ± 0.21a

Five plants per line were measured. Experiments were repeated three time.

Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Discussion

Recently, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has emerged as a powerful tool for gene editing in many organisms including plants. Because of its specificity and efficiency, this system has been widely used to improve important agronomic traits of major crops such as rape, tomato, soybean, rice, wheat and maize [37]. Excluding easy-to-transform reference accessions such as Nipponbare and Kitaake that are widely used in the laboratory, the number of reports on the improvement of agriculturally relevant elite rice cultivars for pertinent traits using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology (see for example [3842]) is gradually increasing but is still limited.

TBR225 [27], a major commercial rice variety cultivated in large areas of Northern Vietnam, has the advantages of early maturity, high and stable yield, as well as cooking quality. However, it is very susceptible to BLB. Here, the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing method was applied in order to rapidly improve the BLB resistance of TBR225 by modifying the AvrXa7, PthXo3 and TalF EBEs on the promoter of OsSWEET14. Of the three generated homozygous mutant lines tested for resistance, the one carrying the largest deletion at the target site (6 bp) showed a significantly improved resistance to infection with two Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15. Therefore, using the major commercial rice variety TBR225 as an example, we illustrate the advantages of CRISPR/Cas9 tool for rice breeding.

In the present study, the frequency of individuals with CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations in T0 transgenic plants was 90%, which is similar to previous observation [33]. We obtained only two heterozygous mutant/wild type lines versus seven homozygous or bi-allelic mutant lines. This high frequency of mutated alleles is another proof that the CRISPR/Cas9 system is indeed an efficient tool for gene editing in plant. We also observed the stable transmission of edited alleles to subsequent generations. This is a common phenomenon that has been repeatedly documented for rice plants carrying CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations [38,40,43,44]. In this study, we obtained only two types of induced mutations in T0 plants: insertion (11.1%) and deletion (66.7%), but no substitution were observed. In some earlier studies, new mutations were continuously obtained in the T1 offspring of heterozygous T0 mutants because the Cas9 complex remains active on edited targets until the seed or PAM regions cease to be functional [35,37,43]. In contrast, here, all the T1 plants generated from both heterozygous lines L-21 and L-29, regardless of whether they had a CRISPR/Cas9 T-DNA transgene integrated in their genome, did not show any new mutation. We could also readily obtain transgene-free plants from most of the T1 segregation populations without any laborious crossing or backcrossing steps, which illustrates an advantage of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology compared to conventional breeding.

Clade III SWEET family proteins are involved in a number of biological processes such as seed and pollen development or pathogen susceptibility [45]. Their inactivation has previously been shown to cause pleiotropic and/or detrimental effects. For example, both ossweet11 single and ossweet11-ossweet15 double Kitaake rice mutants showed defects in endosperm development and filling [46]. In addition, RNA-mediated silencing of either Os11N3/OsSWEET14 [7] or Os8N3/OsSWEET11 [6] in BLB resistant Kitaake lines causes negative effects on seed production. In contrast, here, we show that T-DNA-free TBR225 plants harboring homozygous mutations generated with the CRISPR/Cas9 system in the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE of the OsSWEET14 promoter exhibited enhanced Xoo resistance but did not show any significant difference in all examined agronomic traits compared to wild-type plants under net-house growth conditions. It is conceivable that limited modifications in promoter regions do not affect the normal expression of SWEET genes in contrast to KO or silenced lines. Our findings are consistent with the previous work of Oliva et al. [11] who studied 30 combinations of EBE mutations in the OsSWEET11, OsSWEET13 and OsSWEET14 promoters of the IR64 or Ciherang-Sub1 varieties and detected only a single line with abnormal agronomic traits.

Some individual Xoo strains have evolved a set of distinct TALE effectors that collectively target several members of the clade III SWEET family. The presence of these redundant TALEs thereby trumps single “loss-of-tale-responsiveness” resistance alleles [11,12,17,47]. For example, Kitaake lines carrying TALEN-induced mutation in the SWEET14 promoter [13,15] exhibit resistance to strains which depend exclusively on matching AvrXa7/PthXo3 for clade III SWEET family induction. Likewise, the natural xa13 allele [48] or CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutation in the SWEET11 promoter [11] exhibit resistance to strains such as PXO99 which depend exclusively on PthXo1, for virulence. However, the BLB resistance of the Kitaake lines harboring mutations in both AvrXa7/PthXo3 (OsSWEET14) and PthXo1 (OsSWEET11) EBEs was defeated by Xoo strains expressing simultaneously the AvrXa7/PthXo3 and PthXo2B TALEs [11]. Recently, the stacking of EBE-edited alleles in several OsSWEET promoters have overcome this limitation and was shown to achieve a broad spectrum of resistance to strains from most BLB-prone countries in Asia [11,12].

All of the three T2 lines tested for BLB resistance were affected for the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE and conserved an otherwise wild type TalF EBE (Fig 1C). The homozygous mutant TBR225 line L-5.7(-6) carrying a 6-bp deletion in the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE exhibited a significantly enhanced resistance to two Vietnamese Xoo strains compared to WT TBR225. The L-15.4(+1) and L-31.12(-3) lines that harbored more subtle alterations in the 3’-end of this EBE (a 1-bp insertion and a 3-bp deletion, respectively) in contrast remained susceptible to VXO strains. Our OsSWEET14 expression analysis after Vietnamese Xoo strains inoculation (Fig 1C) suggests that these editing events did not alter the EBE sequence sufficiently to compromise promoter recognition by an AvrXa7/PthXo3-like Vietnamese TALE. With less than 2 cm average lesion length, the resistance of line L-5.7(-6) (6-bp deletion) to the VXO_11 strain is rather extreme (versus average lesion length of 20.1 cm on wild type plants). Moreover, in this line, OsSWEET14 expression following bacterial inoculation is strongly reduced relative the parental line and the two other edited lines, which suggest that in this case, recognition by an AvrXa7/PthXo3-like Vietnamese TALE is abrogated. Consistent with OsSWEET14 expression analysis and as shown in S4 Fig, the Talvez [49] target prediction scores for AvrXa7 and PthXo3 on the OsSWEET14 promoter L-5-a1 allele sequence of line L-5.7(-6) are markedly lower than on the wild type promoter sequence. This is not the case however for the edited alleles carried by lines L-15.4(+1) and L-31.12(-3) (respectively L-15 and L-31 in S4 Fig) whose Talvez scores are identical or slightly lower than those of the wild type promoter sequence.

The magnitude of the effect of the 6-bp deletion allele on susceptibility to VXO_11 is comparable to the dramatic effect of previously characterized alterations of the same EBEs in the Kitaake background against the PXO86 strain that possesses a single TALE, AvrXa7, targeting OsSWEET14 for clade III OsSWEET gene induction [15]. By analogy, this suggests that OsSWEET14 is also the only clade III OsSWEETs target of VXO_11 in the TBR225 background but, in order to confirm this hypothesis an examination of other clade III OsSWEET genes expression patterns in response to this strain would be required. The situation with the VXO_15 strain is not as straightforward to interpret and will require further investigations. Although the 6-bp deletion in the AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE did provide an increased resistance to the edited plants, the VXO_15 strain caused intermediate disease severity (7.3 cm average lesion length on Fig 3). This incomplete resistance is unlikely to result from the partial but still productive recognition of subsequences of the altered EBE by a VXO_15 AvrXa7/PthXo3-like TALE because OsSWEET14 expression is similarly decreased in response to either this strain or VXO_11 (Fig 3C). Alternatively, contrary to all Asian Xoo examined so far, but similar to African Xoo [11,15], VXO_15 may have the intrinsic potential to cause disease in the absence of clade III OsSWEET gene induction, a phenomenon that seems to be dependent on the edited rice variety genetic background [42]. More likely, analogous to other Asian strains, VXO_15 may encode alternative TALEs, such as PthXo2B or PthXo1 that compensate the loss of OsSWEET14 induction by targeting other clade III OsSWEET genes. In this regard, deciphering clade III OsSWEET genes expression patterns in combination with long read genome sequencing will ultimately help describe TALEs variability in Vietnamese Xoo strains and its functional impact on OsSWEET genes induction.

In conclusion, we showed that editing specific EBEs of Xoo TALEs via CRISPR/Cas9 tool is an efficient method for improving BLB resistance of elite rice varieties such as TBR225 without detectable yield penalties. This also uncovered the potential diversity of TALEs in Vietnamese Xoo population, which will thus require future investigations to address the TALE repertoires of Vietnamese Xoo strains in order to generate broad-spectrum BLB-resistant rice varieties in Vietnam.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Nucleotide sequence of the OsSEET14 promoter in TBR225.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Virulence of Vietnamese Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15 on TBR225 rice.

Grey points correspond to individual lesion length measurements while the black points indicate the calculated average value. The line range represents standard deviation.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Picture of an individual plant from the homozygous mutant rice lines L-5.7(-6).

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Talvez scoring of AvrXa7, PthXo3 and TalF target EBES in the edited OsSWEET14 promoter allele sequences.

Score values are represented both by the length of the horizontal bar and a fill color scale. Higher Talvez prediction scores reflect a better match between a predicted EBE and the sequence of RVD of the query TALE.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Amplicon sequencing of predicted off-target sites for the OsSWEET14 promoter-sgRNA in annotated exons of the TBR225 edited line L-5.7(-6).

Potential unintended target sequences including the PAM are highlighted in boxes. They are all identical to the expected wild type Nipponbare sequences.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Key figures on the TBR225 transformation procedure for OsSWEET14 promoter editing.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Output of the CCTop tool used with the OsSWEET14 promoter sgRNA for off-target prediction on the rice Nipponbare genome.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images. Original photograph used in Fig 2 for the RT-PCR gels panel.

(DOCX)

S2 Raw images. Original photograph used in Fig 3C for the RT-PCR gels panel.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Msc. Pham Thi Van, Dr. Cao Le Quyen and Dr. Nguyen Van Cuu from the Institute of Agricultural Genetics for rice transformation experiments, Msc. Nguyen Thi Thu Ha from the Institute of Agricultural Genetics for managing the Xoo strains collection and Msc. Nguyen Thi Nhung from Thaibinh Seeds Cor. for kindly providing the rice accessions.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Technology Innovation Program of Vietnam (Grant No. ĐM.36.DN/18) funded by the Vietnam Ministry of Science and Technology (https://most.gov.vn/vn/pages/Trangchu.aspx) and ThaiBinh Seed Corporation (https://thaibinhseed.com.vn/trang-chu.aspx?lang=en-US). - All equipments, labs and nethouses for this work were supported by Institute of Agricultural Genetics, Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences - Financial support came from the Vietnam Ministry of Science and Technology (https://most.gov.vn/vn/pages/Trangchu.aspx) and ThaiBinh Seed Corporation (https://thaibinhseed.com.vn/trang-chu.aspx?lang=en-US). - The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish the manuscript. However, Tran Manh Bao who’s employed by ThaiBinh Seed Corporation has contributed to the reviewing and editing the manuscript. His name was added as an author of the manuscript. - The funder (ThaiBinh Seed Corporation) supported the research materials (rice cultivar TBR225) for this study. - The funders provided support in the form of salaries for authors (Pham Xuan Hoi, Nguyen Duy Phuong, Pham Thu Hang and Nguyen Thanh Ha and Tran Manh Bao), but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Zhang H, Wang S. Rice versus Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae: A unique pathosystem. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2013; 16(2):188–195. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.02.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.White FF, Potnis N, Jones JB, Koebnik R. The type III effectors of Xanthomonas. Mol Plant Pathol. 2009; 10(6):749–766. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2009.00590.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boch J, Bonas U, Lahaye T. TAL effectors—pathogen strategies and plant resistance engineering. New Phytol. 2014; 204(4):823–832. doi: 10.1111/nph.13015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bogdanove AJ, Schornack S, Lahaye T. TAL effectors: Finding plant genes for disease and defense. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2010; 13(4):394–401. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bezrutczyk M, Yang J, Eom JS, Prior M, Sosso D, Hartwig T, et al. Sugar flux and signaling in plant–microbe interactions. Plant J. 2018; 93(4):675–685. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13775 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yang B, Sugio A, White FF. Os8N3 is a host disease-susceptibility gene for bacterial blight of rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(27):10503–10508. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604088103 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Antony G, Zhou J, Huang S, Li T, Liu B, White F, et al. Rice xa13 recessive resistance to bacterial blight is defeated by induction of the disease susceptibility gene Os-11N3. Plant Cell. 2010; 22(11):3864–3876. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.078964 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yu Y, Streubel J, Balzergue S, Champion A, Boch J, Koebnik R, et al. Colonization of rice leaf blades by an African strain of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae depends on a new TAL effector that induces the rice nodulin-3 Os11N3 gene. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2011; 24(9):1102–1113. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-11-10-0254 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Streubel J, Pesce C, Hutin M, Koebnik R, Boch J, Szurek B. Five phylogenetically close rice SWEET genes confer TAL effector-mediated susceptibility to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. New Phytol. 2013; 200(3):808–819. doi: 10.1111/nph.12411 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhou J, Peng Z, Long J, Sosso D, Liu B, Eom JS, et al. Gene targeting by the TAL effector PthXo2 reveals cryptic resistance gene for bacterial blight of rice. Plant J. 2015; 82(4):632–643. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12838 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Oliva R, Ji C, Atienza-Grande G, Huguet-Tapia JC, Perez-Quintero A, Li T, et al. Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing. Nat Biotechnol. 2019; 37(11):1344–1350. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0267-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Xu Z, Xu X, Gong Q, Li Z, Li Y, Wang S, et al. Engineering broad-spectrum bacterial blight resistance by simultaneously disrupting variable TALE-binding elements of multiple susceptibility genes in rice. Mol Plant. 2019; 12(11):1434–1446. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2019.08.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat Biotechnol. 2012; 30(5):390–392. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2199 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hutin M, Pérez-Quintero AL, Lopez C, Szurek B. MorTAL Kombat: The story of defense against TAL effectors through loss-of-susceptibility. Front Plant Sci. 2015; 6:535. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Blanvillain-Baufumé S, Reschke M, Solé M, Auguy F, Doucoure H, Szurek B, et al. Targeted promoter editing for rice resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae reveals differential activities for SWEET14-inducing TAL effectors. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017; 15(3):306–317. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12613 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zaka A, Grande G, Coronejo T, Quibod IL, Chen CW, Chang SJ, et al. Natural variations in the promoter of OsSWEET13 and OsSWEET14 expand the range of resistance against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. PLoS One. 2018; 13(9):e0203711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Huang S, Antony G, Li T, Liu B, Obasa K, Yang B, et al. The broadly effective recessive resistance gene xa5 of rice is a virulence effector-dependent quantitative trait for bacterial blight. Plant J. 2016; 86(2):186–194. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13164 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 2013; 339(6121):819–23. doi: 10.1126/science.1231143 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Molla KA, Karmakar S, Islam MT. Wide Horizons of CRISPR-Cas-Derived Technologies for Basic Biology, Agriculture, and Medicine. In: Humana, New York, NY; 2020:1–23. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0616-2_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li J, Li Y, Ma L. CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing and its applications for functional genomic analyses in plants. Small Methods. 2019; 3(3):1800473. doi: 10.1002/smtd.201800473.27895652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Van Hop D, Phuong Hoa PT, Quang ND, Ton PH, Ha TH, Van Hung N, et al. Biological control of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae causing rice bacterial blight disease by Streptomyces toxytricini VN08-A-12, isolated from soil and leaf-litter samples in Vietnam. Biocontrol Sci. 2014; 19(3):103–111. doi: 10.4265/bio.19.103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Furuya N, Taura S, Goto T, Trong Thuy B, Huu Ton P, Tsuchiya K, et al. Diversity in virulence of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae from Northern Vietnam. Japan Agric Res Q. 2012; 46(4):329–338. doi: 10.6090/jarq.46.329 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nguyen HT, Vu QH, Van Mai T, Nguyen TT, Vu LD, Nguyen TT, et al. Marker-Assisted Selection of Xa21 conferring resistance to bacterial leaf blight in indica rice cultivar LT2. Rice Sci. 2018; 25(1):52–56. doi: 10.1016/j.rsci.2017.08.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jiang N, Yan J, Liang Y, Shi Y, He Z, Wu Y, et al. Resistance genes and their interactions with bacterial blight/leaf streak pathogens (Xanthomonas oryzae) in rice (Oryza sativa L.)—an updated review. Rice. 2020; 13(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0358-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Karmakar S, Molla KA, Molla J. Genetic Engineering and Genome Editing Strategies to Enhance Diseases Resistance of Rice Plants: A Review of Progress and Future Prospects. In: Rice Research for Quality Improvement: Genomics and Genetic Engineering. Springer Singapore; 2020:35–59. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-5337-0_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Eom JS, Luo D, Atienza-Grande G, Yang J, Ji C, Thi Luu V, et al. Diagnostic kit for rice blight resistance. Nat Biotechnol. 2019; 37(11):1372–1379. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0268-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Manh Bao T, Thi Hop T, Thi Tiec T, Thi Nhung N, Van Hoan N. Results of breeding TBR225 rice cultivar. Vietnam J. Agri. Sci. 2016; 14(9):1360–1367. In Vietnamese. Available from: http://www1.vnua.edu.vn/tapchi/Upload/15112016-so%208.7.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhou J. Host target genes of the Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae type III effectors for bacterial blight in rice. Graduate Theses and Dissertations, The Iowa State University. 2015. Available from: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5476&context=etd.
  • 29.Li T, Huang S, Zhou J, Yang B. Designer TAL effectors induce disease susceptibility and resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae in rice. Mol Plant. 2013; 6(3):781–789. doi: 10.1093/mp/sst034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu H, Ding Y, Zhou Y, Jin W, Xie K, Chen LL. CRISPR-P 2.0: An Improved CRISPR-Cas9 Tool for Genome Editing in Plants. Mol Plant. 2017; 10(3):530–532. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2017.01.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stemmer M, Thumberger T, Del Sol Keyer M, Wittbrodt J, Mateo JL. CCTop: An intuitive, flexible and reliable CRISPR/Cas9 target prediction tool. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Herbert L, Meunier AC, Bes M, Vernet A, Portefaix M, Durandet F, et al. Beyond seek and destroy: how to generate allelic series using genome editing tools. Rice. 2020; 13(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12284-020-0366-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhou H, Liu B, Weeks DP, Spalding MH, Yang B. Large chromosomal deletions and heritable small genetic changes induced by CRISPR/Cas9 in rice. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(17):10903–10914. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku806 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hiei Y, Ohta S, Komari T, Kumashiro T. Efficient transformation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) mediated by Agrobacterium and sequence analysis of the boundaries of the T-DNA. Plant J. 1994; 6(2):271–282. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1994.6020271.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bai J, Choi SH, Ponciano G, Leung H, Leach JE. Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae avirulence genes contribute differently and specifically to pathogen aggressiveness. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2000; 13(12):1322–1329. doi: 10.1094/MPMI.2000.13.12.1322 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ma X, Chen L, Zhu Q, Chen Y, Liu YG. Rapid decoding of sequence-specific nuclease-induced heterozygous and biallelic mutations by direct sequencing of PCR products. Mol Plant. 2015; 8(8):1285–1287. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2015.02.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Razzaq A, Saleem F, Kanwal M, Mustafa G, Yousaf S, Imran Arshad HM, et al. Modern trends in plant genome editing: An inclusive review of the CRISPR/Cas9 Toolbox. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(16):4045. doi: 10.3390/ijms20164045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, Lei C, Hao W, Gao Y, et al. Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-Targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0154027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhou H, He M, Li J, Chen L, Huang Z, Zheng S, et al. Development of commercial thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice accelerates hybrid rice breeding using the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated TMS5 editing system. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:37395. doi: 10.1038/srep37395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zhang A, Liu Y, Wang F, Li T, Chen Z, Kong D, et al. Enhanced rice salinity tolerance via CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the OsRR22 gene. Mol Breed. 2019; 39:47. doi: 10.1007/s11032-019-0954-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zafar K, Khan MZ, Amin I, Mukhtar Z, Yasmin S, Arif M, et al. Precise CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing in super Basmati rice for resistance against bacterial blight by targeting the major susceptibility gene. Front Plant Sci. 2020; 11:575. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zeng X, Luo Y, Vu NTQ, Shen S, Xia K, Zhang M. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutation of OsSWEET14 in rice cv. Zhonghua11 confers resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae without yield penalty. BMC Plant Biol. 2020; 20(1). doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02524-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Molla KA, Shih J, Yang Y. Single-nucleotide editing for zebra3 and wsl5 phenotypes in rice using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated adenine base editors. aBIOTECH. 2020; 1:106–118. doi: 10.1007/s42994-020-00018-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kim YA, Moon H, Park CJ. CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of Os8N3 in rice to confer resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Rice. 2019; 12(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0325-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chen LQ. SWEET sugar transporters for phloem transport and pathogen nutrition. New Phytol. 2014; 201(4):1150–1155. doi: 10.1111/nph.12445 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yang J, Luo D, Yang B, Frommer WB, Eom JS. SWEET11 and 15 as key players in seed filling in rice. New Phytol. 2018; 218(2):604–615. doi: 10.1111/nph.15004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Doucouré H, Pérez-Quintero AL, Reshetnyak G, Tekete C, Auguy F, Thomas E, et al. Functional and genome sequence-driven characterization of tal effector gene repertoires reveals novel variants with altered specificities in closely related malian Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9:1657. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chu Z, Yuan M, Yao J, Ge X, Yuan B, Xu C, et al. Promoter mutations of an essential gene for pollen development result in disease resistance in rice. Genes Dev. 2006; 20(10):1250–1255. doi: 10.1101/gad.1416306 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pérez-Quintero AL, Rodriguez-R LM, Dereeper A, López C, Koebnik R, Szurek B, et al. An improved method for TAL effectors DNA-binding sites prediction reveals functional convergence in TAL repertoires of Xanthomonas oryzae strains. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):68464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

R M Sundaram

13 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-33201

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Hoi Xuan Pham,

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 Dec 28 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,

Raman Meenakshi Sundaram, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2.We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

4.PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: BLB is an agronomically important bacterial disease that causes significant yield loss in rice worldwide. The OsSWEET14 gene is a known target of Asian Xoo strains and the authors have tried to verify if that also served as a susceptibility factor for Vietnamese Xoo strains using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing. Though some SWEET genes have already been targeted by different research groups, the authors have edited the promoter of a popular Vietnamese rice cultivar and have challenged it against two Vietnamese Xoo strains. The experiments have been done and presented logically here. Authors have reported a deletion of six-bases in the promoter region of OsSWEET14 gene that resulted in mutants, which were resistant to one of the Xoo strains tested. However, they were unable to verify what is the minimum number of nucleotide deletion required to get high level resistance. If it is possible for authors to do further experiments to verify this, it will strengthen the manuscript.

In many cases, the authors have mentioned the experimental method in the results section and those should be moved back to materials and methods section. For example, Ln 228-232 can be moved to material and methods section.

Ln 36: The plants have been numbered as x.y.z. Commonly, plants are numbered as x-y-z format where x, y and z represent the offspring number of the plant in subsequent generations. I strongly suggest renaming the plants for easy understanding and to follow the convention.

Ln 159: cite appropriate reference for selecting OsEF1α as reference gene for RT-PCR

Ln 303: Significant difference is clearly visible but no asterisks in Fig. 3B

Ln 319: use lower-case or upper-case letters for all means that don’t vary significantly.

Ln 325-327: Gives an impression that only three studies have been reported for rice improvement, which is not true. Please modify the statement!

Ln 367: Authors assume that limited modifications in promoter regions might not have affected the normal expression of SWEET genes in contrast to KO or silenced lines but they must prove it by using RT-PCR or QRT-PCR before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Ln 393: Authors claim that probably OsSWEET14 is the only S gene target of tested Xoo strain VXO_11 without testing other SWEET genes. The lesion observed is very less but that is not the enough evidence support this statement. Either they must test the EBEs related to other genes or should remove this statement.

Additionally, there are a lot of typos in the manuscript. I have mentioned few of those below, but the manuscript needs to be verified thoroughly for such grammatical errors.

Ln 60: ration should read as ratio

Ln 67: recessive – delete?

Ln 72: obtained?

Ln 82: World should read as world

Ln 97: conferred/ confer?

Ln 97: Is this new identification or verification?

Ln 220: OsSWEET14 2 day post-infiltration can be written as OsSWEET14 two day post-infiltration

Ln 384: very broad spectrum can be written as broad spectrum

Reviewer #2: Review comment on the manuscript entitled “Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter” (PONE-D-20-33201)

General Comment: Present manuscript deals with the development of bacterial blight resistant rice lines (TBR225) using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing tool. Authors have targeted AvrXa7/PthXo3 EBE sequence of SWEET 14 gene promoter. Using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene editing system, authors have generated TBR225 mutant lines with disrupted AvrXa7/PthXo3 effector binding element (EBE). One of the mutant lines showed significant resistance to bacterial leaf blight pathogen. Analysis of T0 and T1 transgenic rice plants showed stable inheritance of mutants to the next generation. Agronomic evaluation has also been performed showing no phenotypic difference with the wild type. Overall, the work is interesting, but the manuscript is poorly written with numerous grammatical mistakes/typos/sentence construction errors (although I have mentioned a few below). However, I find several major issues with the manuscript. Please find my specific comments below. They must be addressed satisfactorily before it can be accepted for publication.

Major:

1. The authors have a similar paper published in Vietnamese (http://www.tapchikhoahocnongnghiep.vn/uploads/news/2019_01/7_1.pdf) . I could understand authors have designed 3 guide RNAs in that published report. The full paper is not accessible for a detail verification. Authors need to clarify what additional work they have done in this study.

2. Abstract: “In this study, we proved that the expression of TBR225 OsSWEET14 was induced by the infection of two representative Vietnamese Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains”. This claim is not supported by the results obtained in the study. Authors have studied the expression of only one member (SWEET14) of SWEET gene family. The data is not sufficient to claim that the two strains induce only SWEET14. Additional SWEET genes need to be included to get a complete picture.

3. I am wondering if Vietnamese Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains are known to secrete AvrXa7/PthXo3 from any earlier studies. If not, then how the authors have selected SWEET14 for expression analysis and then editing the EBEs? How the authors hypothesized that SWEET14 is the probable target S gene for Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains?

4. After the initial expression analysis, authors have set out to edit the EBE sequence in the SWEET14 promoter. There are 4 different known EBEs (TalC, TalF, AvrXa7, and PthXo3) located in the promoter. The guide RNAs designed in the study makes a double strand break in the overlapping EBEs for AvrXa7 and PthXo3. Why the authors preferred to target this EBE over TalC and TalF is not clear from the introduction section. Briefly mention that TalC and TalF are mainly present in African lineages. From the analysis of Oliva et al (2019), “Asian strains had approximately equal numbers of PthXo2 (targeting SWEET13) and PthXo3/AvrXa7 (SWEET14)”. This again raises question, why authors choose to go for only Sweet14?

5. From Figure 1C, it is understood that in some lines (e.g. L1.27), deleted bases comprise of both AvrXa7 and TalF EBEs. It would be interesting to know their disease reactions compared to the lines with only AvrXa7 disrupted.

6. For another line of confirmation, expression analysis of SWEET14 gene from the edited lines (before/after infection) would be a great addition. Authors discussed “This incomplete resistance could result from the partial but still productive recognition of subsequences of the altered EBE by a VXO_15 AvrXa7/PthXo3-like TALE.” This could be simply analysed by expression analysis in the edited line.

7. Line 1.5.7 had 6 bp deletion and showed the best resistance response. Please add the sequence details in Figure 1C.

8. L1.5.7 line was resistant to VXO_11 but moderately to the VXO_15 strain. This indicates VXO_15 might possess additional TALE and induces distinct SWEET. Authors have discussed this in line 399-403. This demands additional experiments, at least analyzing expression of SWEET genes.

9. What is the explant for transformation? Please mention in the material method section.

10. What is the percentage of editing in T0 generation? Please provide a table.

11. Have the authors analyzed off-target editing? If so, please mention here.

12. Line no 368…. Authors said …. “our findings are consistent with the previous work with Oliva et al 2019 ----------- multiple combinations of EBE mutations in the OsSWEET11, OsSWEET13 and OsSWEET14 promoters and did not observe abnormal agronomic traits in Kitaake rice”. This information is not fully correct. Genome edited rice line IR64-106 showed phenotypic differences regarding yield, panicle length and fertility. Consider mentioning it.

13. Please provide an image of genome edited TBR225 mutant rice line with its wild type counterpart to show Phenotypic similarity.

Abstract:

1. Please check if ‘Viet Nam’ or ‘Vietnam’ is correct

2. “OsSWEET14 belongs …. host S gene”. Please split into two sentences to make it easy to follow.

3. “Using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, nine TBR225 mutant lines targeting the AvrXa7/PthXo3 effector binding element (EBE) located on OsSWEET14 promoter region were identified from ten transgenic plants.” Replace ‘targeting’ with “with disrupted AvrXa7/PthXo3……”

4. Line 31-32: “Genotyping analysis of T0 and T1 showed that all mutations were stably inherited to the offspring next generation” Follow the suggestion.

Introduction:

Line 51-53: “TALEs are injected into the plant cell, bind to specific nuclear host gene promoter sequences termed Effector-Binding Elements (EBEs) and induce target gene expression to the benefit of the pathogen”. Modify—Once TALEs are …..cell, they bind to……..”

Line 58-59: “All Xoo strains recurrently target S genes belonging to the SWEET gene family and coding for transmembrane sugar exporter proteins”. Needs proper citation.

Material and Methods:

‘Gene expression analysis’ should go earlier than gRNA design.

Other:

1. Explain the SWEET once in the beginning.

2. Why SWEET14 is not clear? Please briefly mention what makes author to go for SWEET14 promoter editing.

3. Figure legends and tables are misplaced. Please rectify.

4. Page 6: gRNA design: I see there are more than 3 distinct guide options to disrupt the EBE (for PthXo3 and AvrXa7). Why the authors have selected the one depicted in Figure 1a need to be briefly explained.

5. Line 347-349: See the discussion of an earlier publication (https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-020-00018-x). The authors may cite and take help from the paper to discuss additional mutations in T1 generation.

6. Figure 1c, replace ‘Tal5’ with TalF to make it consistent with the figure legend.

7. line 60: Correct the carbohydrate spelling

8. Line 107. ……the sentence --in Hanoi-Vietnam in 2013 and 2016, respectively). Please omit first bracket ‘)’ at the end of the sentence.

9. Line 144…. Please change ‘base on’ to ‘based on’.

10. Line 125. ‘The obtained vector was the integrity of the inserted fragment was verified by sequencing’. Rectify it like- ‘The clone was verified by sequencing’.

11. Line 142. Explain PSA media

12. Line 351. Please correct. genome, , omit extra comma.

13. Line 384. In the sentence ‘to achieve very broad spectrum of resistance’.. Please delete the word very before broad spectrum.

14. fig.2B. replace the figure labelling OsSWEET to OsSWEET14.

15. Line 249: correct analyzis

16. Line 372-385: very poorly written with poor sentence construction. Make them simpler and grammatically correct.

17. Line 249: “All T1 individuals derived from each of two T0 putative homozygotes..” the highlighted portion is not understood.

18. Line 268: “with 88.9% of the T0 lines generating T-DNA-free”. How this 88.9% has been calculated?

19. Line 228: ‘Northern of Vietnam’ correct it

20. Line 111: replace Prime with Primer.

**********

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: Yes: Akshaya Kumar Biswal

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kutubuddin Molla

[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. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0255470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255470.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Dec 2020

We would like to thank the appointed reviewers for their time and efforts assessing our work. The feedback we received was extremely helpful for improving the manuscript and we hope we did a satisfactory job at addressing the various points raised during the reviewing process.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

R M Sundaram

5 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-33201R1

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

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 31st  March 2021. 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,

Raman Meenakshi Sundaram, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been much improved from the previous version. Though there are still some discrepancies that could have improved the manuscript, authors have adequately justified those. For example, they assume that 6 base pair deletion in the promoter region can make a difference in TALE binding but not in gene expression or induction of expression. While working on a promoter editing, it is generally expected to check the expression pattern of the gene under normal and infested condition after editing. Since they did not find any difference in phenotype and it was probably difficult to conduct the experiment, they have avoided the experiment.

Authors claim in the conclusion that the study uncovered potential diversity of TALEs. Though the discussion made by authors indicate towards it, they have not done any experiment to verify that. Hence the statement must be modified accordingly. Though most of the grammatical errors have been rectified still there are some errors as mentioned below:

Ln 33: 'All examined agronomic traits of three transgene-free T2 lines were not significantly different from those of wild-type TBR225' may read as 'None of the examined agronomic traits of three transgene-free T2 lines were significantly different from those of wild-type TBR225'

Ln 67: recessive resistance? – I pointed it earlier, but the explanation was more confusing and must be addressed

Ln381: The single nucleotide mutation was observed only in two of nine plants. So the type of mutation should be only insertion or deletion but not single nucleotide insertion or deletion.

Reviewer #2: Response to manuscript PONE-D-20-33201R1

1. The reply to my comment 3 is not satisfactory scientifically. If authors need to back their gene selection in a rational way, they should cite earlier paper that described Asian strains target SWEET14 or SWEET13. For easy reference see below my comment and author’s response-

My original comment 3: I am wondering if Vietnamese Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains are known to secrete AvrXa7/PthXo3 from any earlier studies. If not, then how the authors have selected SWEET14 for expression analysis and then editing the EBEs? How the authors hypothesized that SWEET14 is the probable target S gene for Xoo VXO_11 and VXO_15 strains?

Authors replied: As thoughtfully pointed out by the reviewer below, based on previous studies, we knew that Asian strains tend to target either OsSWEET14 or OsSWEET13. So, we just tested OsSWEET14 induction and were very lucky it turned to be the good choice.

2. Figure caption: S4: Explain a bit more about TALVEZ scoring for making it easy for the readers.

3. Similarly, reply to my original comment 6 is not satisfactory. It is not understood why authors are reluctant to perform expression analysis. This experiment needs to be done, otherwise the manuscript looks like a substandard one.

Original comment 6: For another line of confirmation, expression analysis of SWEET14 gene from the edited lines (before/after infection) would be a great addition. Authors discussed “This incomplete resistance could result from the partial but still productive recognition of subsequences of the altered EBE by a VXO_15 AvrXa7/PthXo3-like TALE.” This could be simply analysed by expression analysis in the edited line.

Authors replied: We agree that examining OsSWEET14 expression in the edited lines would help decide between possible explanations for the partial resistance phenotype against

VX0_15. As described in our reply to Reviewer 1's comment #1, we however believe this is beyond the scope of the core results of our study. To tackle this issue, we are in the process of generating the resources to obtain a good vision of the tal genes content of some VXO strains (including VXO_11 and VXO_15). This and the suggested expression assays will be part of a follow up study focusing on the mechanisms explaining these phenotypes.

4. Authors have not performed off-target analysis even for revised manuscript. Which is a standard practice for performing CRISPR-Cas9 experiment. Authors used a single guide and analyzing off-targets for a single guide is an easy task.

5. Authors have not taken care of the following original comment in their discussion in the revised manuscript. Line number 382-390 in the revised manuscript.

Original comment: other 5: Line 347-349: See the discussion of an earlier publication (https://doi.org/10.1007/s42994-020-00018-x). The authors may cite and take help from the paper to discuss additional mutations in T1 generation.

In the Page 116 of the suggested paper, it is discussed “Plants descendent from mutants generated by active Cas9 are prone to further rounds of editing until the PAM and seed region of protospacer are destroyed by editing.” Please also discuss your result in this line.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0255470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255470.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 May 2021

We would like to thank you for your time and efforts handling and assessing our work. We hope our modifications of the initial manuscript address the concerns raised by the journal and reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

R M Sundaram

15 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-33201R2

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

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 Jul 30 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Raman Meenakshi Sundaram, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

In view of comments of the reviewers, I recommend the manuscript for a minor revision

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have edited the promoter region of OsSWEET14 gene but not the gene itself. This is a perfect approach since editing of the gene itself might have negative effect on seed setting as demonstrated elsewhere in RNA silencing experiments. This was also discussed by the authors in the “Discussion” section. I wish authors discuss this in the introduction to make the concept clear why they selected to edit the promoter region.

Ln 38-40: This conclusive statement of abstract does not match the title. This can be a supplementary statement but not the only statement.

Ln 410-412: The authors have written “In contrast, here, all the T1 plants generated from both heterozygous lines L-21 and L-29, regardless of whether they had a CRISPR/Cas9 T-DNA transgene integrated in their genome, did not show any new mutation possibly because CRISPR/Cas9 T-DNA transgene was no longer functional.” There is no reason why the CRISPR tools will become inactive, and authors did no effort to test this. The statement must be removed since it can give a wrong message.

Reviewer #2: Comments on the manuscript entitles, “Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter” (PONE-D-20-33201R2)

Although this manuscript is a significantly improved one over its earlier version, the following points need to be addressed before publication. Please find my specific major comments below. Moreover, there are many minor points that require correction and modification. Minor points can be found in the attached annotated PDF file of the manuscript.

1. Why only Sweet 14 expression has been analysed and why authors targeted Sweet 14 and not the others_ need an acceptable justification in the introduction or discussion section.

2. Fig 2B: I am wondering about the level of normal expression of SWEET14 in H2O treated rice samples. Even the authors have mentioned in discussion that normal expression of SWEET genes are necessary for plant development. “It is conceivable that limited modifications in promoter regions do not affect the normal expression of SWEET genes in contrast to KO or silenced lines.”

Authors may have a look at Fig 2B in an earlier publication: 10.1111/pbi.12613, where H2O treated sample showed expression of SWEET14. Why it is different in the current manuscript? Please discuss.

3. Please cite and discuss the observation of A similar article recently published

“Zeng, X., Luo, Y., Vu, N.T.Q. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutation of OsSWEET14 in rice cv. Zhonghua11 confers resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae without yield penalty. BMC Plant Biol 20, 313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-020-02524-y”

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Akshaya Kumar Biswal

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments_June 14 2021.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Annotated file_PONE-D-20-33201_R2.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0255470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255470.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


1 Jul 2021

We would like to thank you for your time and efforts handling and assessing our work. We hope our modifications of the initial manuscript address the concerns raised by the journal and reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

R M Sundaram

19 Jul 2021

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

PONE-D-20-33201R3

Dear Dr. Pham,

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,

R M Sundaram, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In view of the comments of the reviewer, I recommend that the manuscript may be accepted for publication

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

**********

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: Authors have satisfactorily addressed all my queries and incorporated the suggestions. I recommend publication of the manuscript.

**********

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: Kutubuddin Ali Molla

Acceptance letter

R M Sundaram

31 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-33201R3

Improved bacterial leaf blight disease resistance in the major elite Vietnamese rice cultivar TBR225 via editing of the OsSWEET14 promoter

Dear Dr. Pham:

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. R M Sundaram

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. Nucleotide sequence of the OsSEET14 promoter in TBR225.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Virulence of Vietnamese Xoo strains VXO_11 and VXO_15 on TBR225 rice.

    Grey points correspond to individual lesion length measurements while the black points indicate the calculated average value. The line range represents standard deviation.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Picture of an individual plant from the homozygous mutant rice lines L-5.7(-6).

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Talvez scoring of AvrXa7, PthXo3 and TalF target EBES in the edited OsSWEET14 promoter allele sequences.

    Score values are represented both by the length of the horizontal bar and a fill color scale. Higher Talvez prediction scores reflect a better match between a predicted EBE and the sequence of RVD of the query TALE.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Amplicon sequencing of predicted off-target sites for the OsSWEET14 promoter-sgRNA in annotated exons of the TBR225 edited line L-5.7(-6).

    Potential unintended target sequences including the PAM are highlighted in boxes. They are all identical to the expected wild type Nipponbare sequences.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Key figures on the TBR225 transformation procedure for OsSWEET14 promoter editing.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Output of the CCTop tool used with the OsSWEET14 promoter sgRNA for off-target prediction on the rice Nipponbare genome.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images. Original photograph used in Fig 2 for the RT-PCR gels panel.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Raw images. Original photograph used in Fig 3C for the RT-PCR gels panel.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Comments_June 14 2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Annotated file_PONE-D-20-33201_R2.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES