Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257173. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257173

Fungus-originated glucanase and monooxygenase genes in creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)

Yugo Watanabe 1, German C Spangenberg 1,2, Hiroshi Shinozuka 1,*
Editor: Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh3
PMCID: PMC8432771  PMID: 34506557

Abstract

Recent studies have revealed presence of fungus-originated genes in genomes of cool-season grasses, suggesting occurrence of multiple ancestral gene transfer events between the two distant lineages. The current article describes identification of glucanase-like and monooxygenase-like genes from creeping bent grass, as lateral gene transfer candidates. An in silico analysis suggested presence of the glucanase-like gene in Agrostis, Deyeuxia, and Polypogon genera, but not in other species belonging to the clade 1 of the Poeae tribe. Similarly, the monooxygenase-like gene was confined to Agrostis and Deyeuxia genera. A consistent result was obtained from PCR-based screening. The glucanase-like gene was revealed to be ubiquitously expressed in young seedlings of creeping bent grass. Although expression of the monooxygenase-like gene was suggested in plant tissues, the levels were considerably lower than those of the glucanase-like gene. A phylogenetic analysis revealed close relationships of the two genes between the corresponding genes in fungal endophyte species of the Epichloë genus, suggesting that the genes originated from the Epichloë lineage.

Background

The genus Agrostis [Agrostidinae subtribe, Poeae tribe clade 1 (PC1), Pooideae sub-family (cool-season grasses)] includes around 200 species, and its representative species, such that creeping bent grass and common bent (Agrostis capillaris), are grown world-wide as turf [1]. Deyeuxia angustifolia [(Komarov) Y. L Chang] and beard-grass (Polypogon fugax Nees ex Steud.) also belong to the Agrostidinae subtribe, which are known as native and invasive plants [24]. Into the same clade of the Poeae tribe, oat (Avena sativa L.) and harding grass (Phalaris aquatica L.) are classified, which are cultivated as food and pasture crops, respectively [5].

Fungal endophyte species of the Epichloë genus may establish symbiosis with plants of the Pooideae sub-family, providing abiotic and biotic stress resistances to the plant host [6]. E. amarillans is known as symbiont of an Agrostis species, tickle grass (A. hyemalis) [7]. Similarly, plants belong to the genus Lolium [Poeae clade 2 (PC2)] may establish symbiotic relationships with E. festucae. To date, four genes from cool-season grasses have been identified as candidates for laterally transferred genes from the Epichloë lineage. The ß-1,6-glucanase hydrolyses ß-1,6-glucans, which are one of main components of fungal cell walls, and the glucanase was, therefore, believed to be confined to mycoparasitic fungi until recent [8]. From perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L., Lolium genus), a ß-1,6-glucanase-like gene, designated LpBGNL, was found, showing a 90% DNA sequence identity to the E. festucae ß-1,6-glucanase gene. As putative orthologues of LpBGNL were only found from subtribes Lollinae and Dactylidinae (PC2), but not from other plant lineages investigated, it was suggested that the gene was acquired from the Epichloë lineage through horizontal gene transfer (HGT) [9]. Later, a domain of unknown function gene, LpDUF3632, was identified from perennial ryegrass, as HGT candidate. This gene was only conserved in the Loliinae subtribe, and showed a higher DNA sequence identity (96%) to Epichloë DUF3632 genes [10]. Another candidate, designated Fhb7, was identified from a wheat relative species, Thinopyrum elongatum (Triticeae tribe) [11]. The products of this gene had glutathione S-transferase activities and contributed to resistance against fungal pathogens of Fusarium. The DNA sequence identity between the Fhb7 gene and the Epichloë counterparts was up to 97%. The fungal transcriptional regulatory protein-like (FTRL) gene was identified to be more widely conserved in the Poeae and Triticeae tribes [10]. The perennial ryegrass FTRL gene, LpFTRL, showed 85% DNA sequence identity between the corresponding Epichloë gene. Due to absence in plant lineages other than the two tribes, the FTRL gene was likely to have transferred from the Epichloë lineage before diversification of the Poeae and Triticeae tribes.

Horizontally transferred candidates can be identified through a comparison of DNA sequences between two taxonomically distant species [12]. In case of eukaryotes, some constitutive genes, such as actin and ubiquitin genes can be highly conserved even between the two distant taxa, and sequence similarity hits related to those genes need to exclude from the HGT candidates [10]. The following phylogenetic analysis can reveal DNA sequences with an unusually high identity between the two species, to confirm that the gene was transferred across species boundaries. The current study reports the identification of two HGT candidates from creeping bent grass, which show unusually high DNA sequence identities to those of Epichloë.

Materials and methods

In silico analysis

The creeping bent grass transcriptome shotgun assembly (TSA) data (NCBI GenBank: GFQK00000000.1) were obtained from NCBI website, and E. amarillans (strain E57/ATCC 200744) transcriptome data (NCBI BioProject: PRJNA67301) were downloaded from the Genome Projects at University of Kentucky website (http://www.endophyte.uky.edu/) [6]. A DNA sequence homology search was performed with the BLAST+ package, using the megablast function (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi). A subsequent manual examination was performed using the NCBI BLAST tool. Alignment of DNA and amino acid sequences was performed using the CLUSTALW program (https://www.genome.jp/tools-bin/clustalw). Phylogenetic analysis was performed using the MEGA X program [13]. An in silico screening was performed using the NCBI BLAST tool and short read archive (SRA) database.

DNA extraction

Plants seeds were obtained from the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) (S1 Table). The seeds were germinated on filter paper in petri dishes. Total DNA was extracted from young seedings of each genotype using the E.Z.N.A.® Plant DNA Kit (OMEGA).

PCR-based screening

PCR primers were designed with a support of the OligoCal program (S2 Table). A PCR assay was performed using the Luna Universal qPCR Master Mix kit [New England BioLabs (NEB)] on the CFX Connect Real-Time PCR Detection System (BioRad). As the Epichloë genus and its next close genus, Claviceps, include species infectious to grass plants of the Pooideae sub-family, absence of those fungal species in plant genomic DNA (gDNA) samples was confirmed with Epichloë and Claviceps-specific primers [10,14,15].

PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay

Through an alignment of sequences from creeping bent grass and Epichloë species, single nucleotide variations (SNVs) were identified, which could be used for a PCR-RFLP assay. The DNA fragments including the SNV site was amplified with the AsFMOL_con_f1_AstII and r primers, and the amplicons were treated with the AatII restriction enzyme (NEB). The treated amplicons were visualised on a 2% (w/v) agarose gel stained with SYBR Safe (Life Technologies).

Reverse transcript (RT)-real time PCR (qPCR) assay

Based on morphology, 10 plant genotypes of the creeping bent grass young seedlings were dissected into 3 parts, roots, lower leaves, and upper leaves. Total RNA was extracted from each plant part, using the RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN). cDNA samples were prepared using the Maxima H Minus Reverse Transcriptase kit (Thermo Fisher SCIENTIFIC). The reverse transcript products (20 μl) was diluted with the same volume of 1x TE buffer. A qPCR assay was performed using the Luna Universal qPCR Master Mix kit on the CFX Connect Real-Time PCR Detection System. The creeping bent grass Actin gene, AsAct (GeneBank UI: JX644005.1), was used as internal control, and 3 technical replicates were performed for each assay [16]. Relative gene expression levels were calculated using the 2–μμCt method, based on the Cq (threshold cycle) values from the samples. PCR amplification efficiency was examined through a qPCR-based standard curve assay.

Results and discussion

Using the BLAST+ package, a total of 273 sequence similarity hits between A. stolonifera and E. amarillans transcriptome were obtained (S3 Table). The subsequent manual examination identified ß-1,6- glucanase-like (GFQK01230513.1) and flavin-containing monooxygenase (FMO)-like (GFQK01114691.1) sequences from creeping bent grass, which were designated AsBGNL and AsFMOL. The DNA sequence identity between AsBGNL and the corresponding E. amarillans gene (augustus_masked-contig00145-processed-gene-0.47-mRNA-1) was 93%, and the alignment length (length of homologous region) was 1153 bases, with 79 nucleotide mismatches (S1 Fig). The sequence corresponding to the aryl-phospho-beta-D-glucosidase domain of the glucanase was identified, inferring that the gene products retain the molecular function (Fig 1). Between AsFMOL and the corresponding E. amarillans gene (fgenesh_masked-contig00237-processed-gene-0.48-mRNA-1), two separated hits were obtained, and the DNA sequence identities were 95.5 and 95.6%. The alignment length for AsFMOL was 1447 bases, when the two hits were combined (S2 Fig).

Fig 1. Amino acid sequence alignments for the predicted products of glucanase-like (a) and flavin-containing monooxygenase-like (b) genes.

Fig 1

The alignments are shown in the CLUSTAL W format. In the amino acid sequences, dash (−) represents a gap. Under the alignments, ‘conserved amino acid residues’, ‘including conserved substitution(s)’ and ‘including semi-conserved substitution(s)’ are denoted with asterisk (*), colon (:) and dot (.). The part of the aryl-phospho-beta-D-glucosidase domain is highlighted with light green (a).

A BLAST search against publicly available datasets was performed to examine the presence/absence status of the HGT candidates in taxonomically related plant species. Through the BLAST search against the SRA data of Agrostis, Deyeuxia, and Polypogon species, DNA sequence similarity hits for AsBGNL were obtained from all tested datasets (Table 1). No corresponding sequence was, however, found from oat and harding grass. When DNA sequences catalogued in the NCBI GenBank database were sought, the BLAST-based approach revealed a relatively high sequence similarity between AsFMOL and monooxygenase(-like) genes from fungi of the Clavicipitaceae family (Ascomycota) (S4 Table). Although some partial similarities were observed between sequences from other fungi and bacteria, no plant sequences were identified to show a significant similarity to AsFMOL. Through the BLAST search against the SRA datasets from plant species of PC1, DNA sequence similarity hits for AsFMOL were only obtained from Agrostis and Deyeuxia species, and no corresponding sequence was found from P. fugax, harding grass, or oat (Table 1). An eukaryote transcriptome SRA dataset is typically generated through shotgun sequencing of entire mRNA molecules from a target tissues in an unbiased (non-selective) manner, and such a dataset may contain some amount of sequencing artifacts and/or short reads derived from unintended organisms, especially parasitic and pathogenic microorganisms, which could affect the subsequent data annotation [17]. A control BLAST-based search was, therefore, performed using an Epichloë-specific sequence, makes caterpillars floppy (mcf)-like gene (GenBank UI: KJ502561.1) [14]. No significantly similar sequence from each SRA dataset was found, indicating absence of an Epichloë species-originated sequence in the datasets.

Table 1. Sequence similarity hit number and highest identity from Pooideae species.

Common name Scientific name NCBI SRA UI Tissues Source Instrument Data size (bp) AsBGNL AsFMOL Institute/Organization
Highest identity Hit number Highest identity Hit number
Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera SRX2962769 - Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2000 11.5G 100%, 1e-69 921 100%, 3e-71 102 Gansu Agricultural University
Hair grass Agrostis scabra SRX2582777-SRX2582785 Leaf Transcriptome Illumina MiSeq 24.2G 100%, 2e-153 717 99%, 4e-152 25 Rutgers University
- Deyeuxia angustifolia SRX692543 Leaf Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2000 9.3G 100%, 3e-43 4643 100%, 3e-44 183 Institute of Natural Resources and Ecology, Heilon
- Polypogon fugax SRX815938 Entire fresh plant Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2000 4.6G 98%, 1e-39 448 N.S. - Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences
- Polypogon fugax SRX815968 Entire fresh plant Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2000 4.9G 84%, 2e-54 801 N.S. - Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Oat Avena sativa SRX3481669 Leaf Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2500 22.6G N.S. - N.S. - The Sainsbury Laboratory
Oat Avena sativa SRX3481668 Leaf Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2500 27.7G N.S. - N.S. - The Sainsbury Laboratory
Harding grass Phalaris aquatica SRX669405 - Transcriptome Illumina HiSeq 2000 10.2G N.S. - N.S. - Teagasc

‘N.S.’ stands for no significant hit.

For further validation, the PCR-based screening was performed. The assay with the AsBGNL-specific primers indicated that the ß-1,6-glucanase-like sequences were only present in creeping bent grass, common bent, and annual beard grass, but not in harding grass (Figs 2A and S3). With the AsBGNL-specific primers, PCR amplification was not observed from the Epichloë gDNA template. Absence of Epichloë and Claviceps gDNA in the plant gDNA samples was confirmed using the fungus-specific PCR primers. The assay with AsFMOL-specific primers indicated that the FMO(-like) sequence is present in creeping bent grass and common bent, but not in annual beard grass and harding grass (Fig 2A). Using the AsFMOL-specific primers, PCR amplicons from E. festucae were also observed. The DNA sequence alignment identified SNVs between AsFMOL and the corresponding Epichloë genes, and, in the PCR amplicons, two SNVs were found to be related to an AatII recognition site of Epichloë sequence (S2 Fig). Due to these SNVs, the PCR amplicons from Epichloë species were predicted to be digested with the AatII restriction enzyme, while the amplicons from creeping bent grass do not possess any AatII recognition site. Through the PCR-RFLP assay, a clear size difference between plant- and fungus-derived DNA fragments was observed, and this result excluded the possibility of presence of Epichloë gDNA in plant gDNA samples (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. PCR-based screening for the HGT candidates.

Fig 2

(a) Results of PCR amplification with the AsBGNL/LpBGNL_F and AsBGNL_R primers (top panel), and the AsFMOL_con_f1_AstII and AsFMOL_con_r1_AstII primers (second panel). As a control experiment, PCR with the C.purpurea_D0288F and R primers, and the Epichloe_mcf_F and R primers was performed (third and bottom panels). As PCR templates, gDNA samples from 3 creeping bent grass individuals, 3 common bent individuals, and 2 annual beard grass individuals were used, along with those of E. festucae and harding grass. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. The expected positions of PCR amplicons on the agarose gel are indicated with grey arrows. The BIOLINE EasyLadder I was used as size standard and the sizes of ladders are indicated with black arrows. (b) Results of the PCR-RFLP assay. The upper panel shows PCR fragments from each gDNA sample before the restriction enzyme treatment, and the lower panel shows the fragments after the treatment.

Using the RT-qPCR-based approach, the gene expression analysis was performed for AsBGNL and AsFMOL. The Cq values for AsBGNL and AsAct were between 24–28, and the analysis revealed that AsBGNL was ubiquitously expressed in the young seedlings, including root tissues (Fig 3). This trend was similar to that of LpBGNL in perennial ryegrass [9]. As Epichloë species do not infect root tissues, AsBGNL may contribute to plant pathogen resistance, especially against soil-borne fungi, rather than interaction between the fungal endophyte. Although the RT-qPCR assay was performed for AsFMOL, amplification was detected only after 32 reaction cycles. (S4 Fig). The RT-qPCR data for AsFMOL were, therefore, concluded not to be suitable for a relative gene expression analysis [18,19]. This assay, however, suggested that the gene was ubiquitously expressed, but at a low level, in young seedlings. From the SRA data of creeping bent grass, hair grass and Deyeuxia, a substantially lower expression pattern of AsFMOL was also suggested, compared with AsBGNL. The read numbers per kilobase per million (FPKM) of AsFMOL were only 0.2–1.3, meanwhile those of AsBGNL were 5.6–31.5 (S5 Table), supporting the result from the RT-qPCR-based assay.

Fig 3. Gene expression analysis for AsBGNL.

Fig 3

The expression levels are normalised with that of lower leaves, which is indicated with an asterisk (*). Black lines stand for standard deviation.

The phylogenetic analysis was performed for AsBGNL and AsFMOL. The analysis suggested a closer relationship of AsBGNL between LpBGNL, than corresponding genes of Epichloë species (Fig 4A). The previous study demonstrated the specificity of the plant ß-glucanese-like gene to the Lollinae and Dactylidinae subtribes of PC2, and the phylogeny, thus, suggested a possibility of horizontal transfer of the Lollinae ß-glucanese-like gene into a common ancestor of Agrostidinae species. Other scenarios could be considered, such as two independent (Epichloë-Lollinae/Dactylidinae and Epichloë-Agrostidinae) HGT events, and HGTs into a common ancestor of the Pooideae species (both PC1 and PC2), followed by lineage-specific gene deletions. However, these alternative scenarios are not supported with the result of the phylogenetic analysis. In case of the plant-to-plant HGT, it is likely that the ß-glucanese-like gene was laterally transferred after the period that broad-leaved Loliinae, including perennial ryegrass, diverged from fine-leaved Loliinae, including sheep fescue (Festuca ovina L.). The phylogenetic analysis suggested a closer relationship between AsFMOL and the corresponding gene of E. baconii, E. amarillans, E. mollis, and E.festucae, compared with other Epichloë species (Fig 4B). It was, therefore, suggested that the gene was laterally transferred from the Epichloë lineage after diversification of the Epichloë genus.

Fig 4. Phylogenetic analysis for the HGT candidates.

Fig 4

(a) Phylogenetic tree of plant and fungal ß-1,6-glucanase(-like) genes, based on an amino acid alignment of the aryl-phospho-beta-D-glucosidase domain. (b) Phylogenetic tree of plant and fungal FMO-like genes on an amino acid alignment. Sequences from creeping bent grass are indicated with red arrows. Strain identifiers of the Genome Project at the University of Kentucky website or NCBI UI are shown in brackets.

Poa and sheep fescue are categorised into PC2, and horizontal transfer of the Poa cytosolic enzyme phosphoglucose gene, PgiC, into sheep fescue has been well characterized [20,21]. Due to absence of evidence for cross-fertilisation between the two species, a possibility of microorganism-mediated HGT was initially discussed, rather than fertilisation (introgression)-based gene transfer [20]. Afterwards, a possibility of transformation (gDNA fragment integration)-like and mRNA-mediated gene exchanges between taxonomically distant plants, especially between parasitic and host species, was discussed [22,23]. The gene exchange between Lollinae and Agrostidinae common ancestors may have occurred through one of the proposed plant-to-plant HGT models. A PCR assay inferred conservation of the intron position between AsBGNL and LpBGNL (S5 Fig). It is likely that a DNA molecule-mediated mechanism was involved in the gene transfer event of the ß-gulcanese(-like) gene.

Recently, systematic surveys were conducted to identify genes transferred between grass species [24,25]. A total of 26 plant-to-plant HGT candidates were identified from black seed grass (Alloteropsis semialata, Panicoideae subfamily), of which 25 were presumably derived from distant Panicoideae linages [24]. The other candidate was concluded to have originated in the Chloridoideae lineage, which is a sister clade of Panicoideae. A lager survey including 17 grass species of the Poaceae family identified 135 plant-to-plant HGT candidates [25]. The survey included 9 Panicoideae species, and a great portion of the candidates were concluded to be genes transferred between Panicoideae lineages. From the Pooideae subfamily, only 3 species [Brachypodium distachyon, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)] were subjected, to find 12 candidates. The current study has suggested that AsBGNL was acquired through a plant-to-plant HGT event. Although the Poeae tribe includes over 2,500 species, composing the largest grass tribe, no Poeae species were included in the previous survey [5,25]. A further investigation using Poeae species may identify such HGT candidates.

Due to the high amino acid sequence identity to the Epichloë FMO, it is possible that AsFMOL still retain the molecular function. FMO commonly acts on sulfur and nitrogen-containing nucleophiles [26]. This type of monooxygenase has been found in bacteria, animals, fungi and plants, suggesting an ancient origin [26]. Although previous studies in animals and plants indicated that some types of FMOs contribute to longevity, other FMOs may have varied roles, depending on taxonomy. In animals, several FMOs have been reported to be related to metabolic diseases, while those in plants were identified to be related to pathogen defense and auxin biosynthesis [26,27]. A further analysis is essential to reveal the function of AsFMOL.

In the current report, identification of the novel candidates for horizontally transferred genes in cool-season grasses has been described. Although models for the HGT events are still unclear, the genes possibly retain the molecular functions. The two genes are likely to have transferred across species boundaries relatively recently in the evolutionary time. A further investigation of the two genes may support the hypothesis that HGT has been a part of evolution and adaptation mechanisms of flowering plants (Angiosperms) [24].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. DNA sequence alignment of the glucanase(-like) genes.

mRNA sequences from E. amarillans and creeping bent grass are aligned with a part of genomic sequence from perennial ryegrass. A dash (-) shows a gap in the DNA sequences, and an asterisk (*) under the alignment denotes ‘conserved nucleotide’. The intron sequence of perennial ryegrass glucanase-like gene is shown with an empty box. The location and direction of each PCR primer are shown with a blue arrow.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. DNA sequence alignment of the flavin-containing monooxygenase(-like) genes.

The AsFMOL sequence is aligned with E. amarillans and E. festucae FMO sequences. A dash (-) shows a gap in the DNA sequences, and an asterisk (*) under the alignment denotes ‘conserved nucleotide’. The location and direction of each PCR primer are shown with a blue arrow. The AatII restriction enzyme recognition site in the E. amarillans and E. festucae sequences is indicated with an empty box.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. PCR-based screening using the AsBGNL and LpBGNL locus-specific primers.

The gDNA samples of creeping bent grass, oat, harding grass, perennial ryegrass, and E. festucae were used as DNA template. A control experiment with the florigen candidate gene (HD3/FT)-specific primers was performed, to confirm the quality of plant gDNA samples. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. The PCR amplicons were visualised on an agarose gel (2% w/v) containing the SYBR Safe stain, and the expected size of PCR amplicons is indicated with a grey-filed arrow. The BIOLINE EasyLadder I was used as size standard.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. qPCR amplification plot for the AsFMOL gene expression analysis.

The vertical and horizontal axes indicate the relative fluorescence units (RFU) and the number of PCR cycles. cDNA samples from roots, lower leaves, and upper leaves were used as DNA template. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. The sample names are shown on the right side of the plot. The threshold line is shown with the thick green line. The plot was generated with CFX Maestro Software (BioRad).

(PDF)

S5 Fig. PCR assay with the primers designed across the intron (upper panel) and on the exon/intron boundaries (lower panel) of AsBGNL.

The gDNA samples of creeping bent grass and common bent grass, and cDNA sample of creeping bent grass were used as DNA template. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. PCR amplicons were visualised on an agarose gel containing the SYBR Safe stain. Based on the DNA sequence alignment result (S1 Fig), the AsBGNL_exon_F and R primers were designed. A larger fragment sizes from the gDNA template suggested presence of intron(s) in AsBGNL (upper panel). The forward primer (AsBGNL_intron_F) was designed across exon/intron boundaries of LpBGNL. The combination of the AsBGNL_intron_F and AsBGNL_R primers amplified DNA fragments from the cDNA templates, but no PCR fragments were observed from the gDNA templates, suggesting conservation of the intron position between AsBGNL and LpBGNL (lower panel). The expected positions of PCR amplicons from cDNA templates are indicated with the grey-filled arrows. The NEB 100 bp DNA Ladder (upper panel) and BIOLINE EasyLadder I (lower panel) and were used as size standard, and the sizes of representative ladders are shown with the black-filled arrows.

(PDF)

S1 Table. Plant materials used for PCR-based screening.

SARDI UI denotes the unique identifier of the South Australian Research and Development Institute.

(PDF)

S2 Table. PCR primers designed and used in the current study.

(PDF)

S3 Table. DNA sequence homology search result between creeping bent grass and E. amarillans transcriptomes.

The similarity hits for AsBGNL and AsFMOL are highlighted with yellow.

(PDF)

S4 Table. BLAST DNA sequence similarity search using the AsFMOL sequence as query.

(PDF)

S5 Table. Short-read sequencing-based gene expression analysis.

Read count quantification was preformed using the NCBI BLAST tool. The word size parameter was set at 64. The AsBGNL and AsFMOL sequences were used as query sequence.

(PDF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank SARDI for provision of plant seeds.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by funding from Agriculture Victoria. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Reichman JR, Watrud LS, Lee EH, Burdick CA, Bollman MA, Storm MJ, et al. Establishment of transgenic herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) in nonagronomic habitats: TRANSGENIC AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA OUTSIDE OF CULTIVATION. Mol Ecol. 2006;15: 4243–4255. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03072.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Atia A, Smaoui A, Barhoumi Z, Abdelly C, Debez A. Differential response to salinity and water deficit stress in Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. provenances during germination: Germination of Polypogon monspeliensis provenances. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2011;13: 541–545. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2010.00401.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Li L, Xing M, Lv J, Wang X, Chen X. Response of rhizosphere soil microbial to Deyeuxia angustifolia encroaching in two different vegetation communities in alpine tundra. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 43150. doi: 10.1038/srep43150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Weber E. Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds. 2nd edition. Wallingford, Oxfordshire; Boston, MA: CABI; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Soreng RJ, Peterson PM, Romaschenko K, Davidse G, Teisher JK, Clark LG, et al. A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae (Gramineae) II: An update and a comparison of two 2015 classifications: Phylogenetic classification of the grasses II. J Syst Evol. 2017;55: 259–290. doi: 10.1111/jse.12262 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schardl CL, Young CA, Hesse U, Amyotte SG, Andreeva K, Calie PJ, et al. Plant-Symbiotic Fungi as Chemical Engineers: Multi-Genome Analysis of the Clavicipitaceae Reveals Dynamics of Alkaloid Loci. PLoS Genet. 2013;9: e1003323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schardl CL, Craven KD, Speakman S, Stromberg A, Lindstrom A, Yoshida R. A Novel Test for Host-Symbiont Codivergence Indicates Ancient Origin of Fungal Endophytes in Grasses. Syst Biol. 2008;57: 483–498. doi: 10.1080/10635150802172184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de la Cruz J, Llobell A. Purification and properties of a basic endo-beta-1,6-glucanase (BGN16.1) from the antagonistic fungus Trichoderma harzianum. Eur J Biochem. 1999;265: 145–151. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00698.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shinozuka H, Hettiarachchige IK, Shinozuka M, Cogan NOI, Spangenberg GC, Cocks BG, et al. Horizontal transfer of a ß-1,6-glucanase gene from an ancestral species of fungal endophyte to a cool-season grass host. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 9024. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07886-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shinozuka H, Shinozuka M, de Vries EM, Sawbridge TI, Spangenberg GC, Cocks BG. Fungus-originated genes in the genomes of cereal and pasture grasses acquired through ancient lateral transfer. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 19883. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76478-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang H, Sun S, Ge W, Zhao L, Hou B, Wang K, et al. Horizontal gene transfer of Fhb7 from fungus underlies Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat. Science. 2020;368: eaba5435. doi: 10.1126/science.aba5435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Richards TA, Soanes DM, Foster PG, Leonard G, Thornton CR, Talbot NJ. Phylogenomic Analysis Demonstrates a Pattern of Rare and Ancient Horizontal Gene Transfer between Plants and Fungi. Plant Cell. 2009;21: 1897–1911. doi: 10.1105/tpc.109.065805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33: 1870–1874. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ambrose KV, Koppenhöfer AM, Belanger FC. Horizontal gene transfer of a bacterial insect toxin gene into the Epichloë fungal symbionts of grasses. Sci Rep. 2015;4: 5562. doi: 10.1038/srep05562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Comte A, Gräfenhan T, Links MG, Hemmingsen SM, Dumonceaux TJ. Quantitative molecular diagnostic assays of grain washes for Claviceps purpurea are correlated with visual determinations of ergot contamination. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0173495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xiao GZ, Li LJ, Teng K, Chao YH, Han LB. Cloning and expression of the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic oxidase gene from Agrostis stolonifera. Genet Mol Res. 2016;15. doi: 10.4238/gmr15049034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Borner J, Burmester T. Parasite infection of public databases: a data mining approach to identify apicomplexan contaminations in animal genome and transcriptome assemblies. BMC Genomics. 2017;18: 100. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-3504-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ruiz-Villalba A, Ruijter JM, van den Hoff MJB. Use and Misuse of Cq in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting. Life. 2021;11: 496. doi: 10.3390/life11060496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Taylor SC, Nadeau K, Abbasi M, Lachance C, Nguyen M, Fenrich J. The Ultimate qPCR Experiment: Producing Publication Quality, Reproducible Data the First Time. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37: 761–774. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ghatnekar L, Jaarola M, Bengtsson BO. The introgression of a functional nuclear gene from Poa to Festuca ovina. Proc R Soc B. 2006;273: 395–399. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vallenback P, Ghatnekar L, Bengtsson BO. Structure of the Natural Transgene PgiC2 in the Common Grass Festuca ovina. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e13529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yoshida S, Maruyama S, Nozaki H, Shirasu K. Horizontal Gene Transfer by the Parasitic Plant Striga hermonthica. Science. 2010;328: 1128–1128. doi: 10.1126/science.1187145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang Z, Zhang Y, Wafula EK, Honaas LA, Ralph PE, Jones S, et al. Horizontal gene transfer is more frequent with increased heterotrophy and contributes to parasite adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113: E7010–E7019. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608765113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dunning LT, Olofsson JK, Parisod C, Choudhury RR, Moreno-Villena JJ, Yang Y, et al. Lateral transfers of large DNA fragments spread functional genes among grasses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116: 4416–4425. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810031116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hibdige SGS, Raimondeau P, Christin P, Dunning LT. Widespread lateral gene transfer among grasses. New Phytol. 2021;230: 2474–2486. doi: 10.1111/nph.17328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rossner R, Kaeberlein M, Leiser SF. Flavin-containing monooxygenases in aging and disease: Emerging roles for ancient enzymes. J Biol Chem. 2017;292: 11138–11146. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R117.779678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schlaich NL. Flavin-containing monooxygenases in plants: looking beyond detox. Trends Plant Sci. 2007;12: 412–418. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh

3 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-20796

Fungus-originated glucanase and monooxygenase genes in creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shinozuka,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: As Peer-reviewers suggest modifications in the manuscript address all their comments critically and resubmit your manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 17 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,

Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh, PhD

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 note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. 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.

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

5. 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:

Reviewers suggest minor revisions to the manuscript. I suggest you to address their comments critically  and resubmit your manuscript for further consideration. Adequate discussion of published research pertaining to horizontal gene transfer is warranted.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors compared the transcriptome data between bent grass and E. amarillans and identified two horizontally transferred candidate genes. Phylogenetic analysis showed that BGNL was transferred into a common ancestor of Agrostidinae species, while FMOL was transferred into Agrostis stolonifera from Epichloe lineage. The research is structured in an appropriate manner. As there is no functional analysis, the last paragraph "adaptation mechanisms of flowering plants (Angiosperms)" is an over interpretation from the present results. Overall, this manuscript is technically rigorous and meets the scientific and ethical standard, and only minor corrections are needed.

Fig.1a

As Perennial ryegrass is not the main focus of this study, it is better to place it in the third lane.

Furthermore, is there a clear reason why Fig.1a should include the amino acid sequence of perennial ryegrass and Fig.1b should contain the amino acid sequence of E. festucae?

Is there a problem with comparing only E. amarillans and Creeping bent grass?

L241-L244

I could not understand why it is unsuitable for calculating relative gene expression in AsFMOL. Why not just increase the number of cycles?

L269

fine--leaves -> fine-leaves

L307

in cool cool-season grasses -> in cool-season grasses

Reviewer #2: 1. Fungus-originated glucanase and monooxygenase genes in creeping bent grass manuscript is well planned and comprehensive, covering all the aspects of recent studies have revealed presence of fungus-originated genes in genomes of cool-season grasses, suggesting occurrence of multiple ancestral gene transfer events between the two distant lineages. The current article describes identification of glucanase-like and monooxygenase-like genes from creeping bent grass, as lateral gene transfer candidates. The quality of language is good and flow of ideas is easily be followed by the reader. The strength of this manuscript is that discussed almost all the recent research articles related to the research and listed in reference list.

2. The quality of the figures and/or table is satisfactory

3. The manuscript covered the topic in an objective and analytical manner

and reference list covered the relevant literature adequately and in an unbiased manner.

4. I would suggest this manuscript is accepted only after minor corrections are incorporated as suggested below.

Suggested corrections:

In Text:

Some references are not according to the journal format, it has to be modified accordingly.

Reviewer #3: In this research glucanase-like and monooxygenase-like genes were identified as lateral gene transfer candidates in creeping bent grass. In- silico studies were conducted using transcriptome datasets to identify these genes in related plant species. PCR based screening were further performed to confirm the results. In addition gene expression studies were conducted to validate the expressions of these genes. Overall this research provides important information regarding the later genes transfer in creeping bent grass and the scientific quality of the research is high. Following point may be considered.

There are previously published reports regarding the lateral gene transfer in grasses. Authors should discuss in more details regarding the major outcome of this research and highlight its importance.

**********

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: Ryo Fujimoto

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257173. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257173.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Aug 2021

Dear Editor,

We would like to appreciate the Reviewers for their generous comments on the manuscript. The followings are point-to-point responses to the Reviewers.

Comment 1 from Reviewer #1: As there is no functional analysis, the last paragraph "adaptation mechanisms of flowering plants (Angiosperms)" is an over interpretation from the present results.

Response for comment 1: The sentence was corrected following the comment (Lines 329-330 of the marked-up copy). How horizontally transferred genes contributed to recipient’s adaptation is one of current argument in this field. A citation was added (Dunning et al. 2019 doi:10.1073/pnas.1810031116).

Comment 2 from Reviewer #1: Fig.1a As Perennial ryegrass is not the main focus of this study, it is better to place it in the third lane.Furthermore, is there a clear reason why Fig.1a should include the amino acid sequence of perennial ryegrass and Fig.1b should contain the amino acid sequence of E. festucae? Is there a problem with comparing only E. amarillans and Creeping bent grass?

Response for comment 2: The alignment was from the CLUSTALW program, and no manual adjustment was performed. The reason why perennial ryegrass sequence is included in the AsBGNL figure is that the perennial ryegrass sequence showed a higher sequence identity with AsBGNL than the E. amarillans sequence did. Regarding the AsFMOL figure, E. festucae is a representative species of Epichloe and the genome of E. festucae has been better assembled than other Epichloe species in the database (Schardl et al. 2013 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003323). As Epichloe genomes in the database have not been completely assembled, we believe that inclusion of multiple data points is essential, to eliminate a possibility of sequencing contamination or assembly artifacts.

Comment 3 from Reviewer #1: L241-L244 I could not understand why it is unsuitable for calculating relative gene expression in AsFMOL. Why not just increase the number of cycles?

Response for comment 3: A common question for an HGT candidate is whether the gene is expressed in the recipient species. The main purpose of the experiment is to determine this. In a qPCR assay, higher Cq values are generally less reliable, due to generation of some amounts of PCR artifacts (primer dimers and non-specific product) and a higher sample variance (Ruiz-Villalba et al. 2021 doi:10.3390/life11060496; Taylor et al. 2019 doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.12.002). Therefore, the cutoff value should be set to somewhere between 30-35 cycles. In our case, the Cq values from more than half samples were over 35 cycles, to conclude that the qPCR result was not suitable for the relative expression analysis. We also tried other PCR primer combinations, to find that none of them worked better than the AsFMOL_ps_f1 and r1 combination. The references for the qPCR QC process have been added in the text (Line 243 of the marked-up copy).

Comment 4 from Reviewer #1: L269 fine--leaves -> fine-leaves, L307 in cool cool-season grasses -> in cool-season grasses

Response for comment 4: The text was corrected following the comments.

Comment from Reviewer #2: Some references are not according to the journal format, it has to be modified accordingly.

Response for comment: The reference list was generated the Zotero program (https://www.zotero.org). Then, the list was manually corrected, which can be found in Lines 346-436 of the marked-up copy.

Comment from Reviewer #3: There are previously published reports regarding the lateral gene transfer in grasses. Authors should discuss in more details regarding the major outcome of this research and highlight its importance.

Response for comment: Discussion about the recent progress in grass species, especially in Panicoideae subfamily was inserted, which can be found Lines 296-311 of the marked-up copy. For this section, two references (Dunning et al. 2019 doi:10.1073/pnas.1810031116; Hibdige et al. 2021 doi:10.1111/nph.17328) were added

I believe that all points raised by the Reviewers have been addressed.

Hiroshi Shinozuka

On behalf of all authors.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh

25 Aug 2021

Fungus-originated glucanase and monooxygenase genes in creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)

PONE-D-21-20796R1

Dear Dr. Shinozuka,

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,

S.V. Ramesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors responded my comments and I agreed with their comments. Thus I do not have further comments.

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh

2 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-20796R1

Fungus-originated glucanase and monooxygenase genes in creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)

Dear Dr. Shinozuka:

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. Shunmugiah Veluchamy Ramesh

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. DNA sequence alignment of the glucanase(-like) genes.

    mRNA sequences from E. amarillans and creeping bent grass are aligned with a part of genomic sequence from perennial ryegrass. A dash (-) shows a gap in the DNA sequences, and an asterisk (*) under the alignment denotes ‘conserved nucleotide’. The intron sequence of perennial ryegrass glucanase-like gene is shown with an empty box. The location and direction of each PCR primer are shown with a blue arrow.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. DNA sequence alignment of the flavin-containing monooxygenase(-like) genes.

    The AsFMOL sequence is aligned with E. amarillans and E. festucae FMO sequences. A dash (-) shows a gap in the DNA sequences, and an asterisk (*) under the alignment denotes ‘conserved nucleotide’. The location and direction of each PCR primer are shown with a blue arrow. The AatII restriction enzyme recognition site in the E. amarillans and E. festucae sequences is indicated with an empty box.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. PCR-based screening using the AsBGNL and LpBGNL locus-specific primers.

    The gDNA samples of creeping bent grass, oat, harding grass, perennial ryegrass, and E. festucae were used as DNA template. A control experiment with the florigen candidate gene (HD3/FT)-specific primers was performed, to confirm the quality of plant gDNA samples. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. The PCR amplicons were visualised on an agarose gel (2% w/v) containing the SYBR Safe stain, and the expected size of PCR amplicons is indicated with a grey-filed arrow. The BIOLINE EasyLadder I was used as size standard.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. qPCR amplification plot for the AsFMOL gene expression analysis.

    The vertical and horizontal axes indicate the relative fluorescence units (RFU) and the number of PCR cycles. cDNA samples from roots, lower leaves, and upper leaves were used as DNA template. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. The sample names are shown on the right side of the plot. The threshold line is shown with the thick green line. The plot was generated with CFX Maestro Software (BioRad).

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. PCR assay with the primers designed across the intron (upper panel) and on the exon/intron boundaries (lower panel) of AsBGNL.

    The gDNA samples of creeping bent grass and common bent grass, and cDNA sample of creeping bent grass were used as DNA template. NTC stands for ‘no template control’. PCR amplicons were visualised on an agarose gel containing the SYBR Safe stain. Based on the DNA sequence alignment result (S1 Fig), the AsBGNL_exon_F and R primers were designed. A larger fragment sizes from the gDNA template suggested presence of intron(s) in AsBGNL (upper panel). The forward primer (AsBGNL_intron_F) was designed across exon/intron boundaries of LpBGNL. The combination of the AsBGNL_intron_F and AsBGNL_R primers amplified DNA fragments from the cDNA templates, but no PCR fragments were observed from the gDNA templates, suggesting conservation of the intron position between AsBGNL and LpBGNL (lower panel). The expected positions of PCR amplicons from cDNA templates are indicated with the grey-filled arrows. The NEB 100 bp DNA Ladder (upper panel) and BIOLINE EasyLadder I (lower panel) and were used as size standard, and the sizes of representative ladders are shown with the black-filled arrows.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. Plant materials used for PCR-based screening.

    SARDI UI denotes the unique identifier of the South Australian Research and Development Institute.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. PCR primers designed and used in the current study.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. DNA sequence homology search result between creeping bent grass and E. amarillans transcriptomes.

    The similarity hits for AsBGNL and AsFMOL are highlighted with yellow.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. BLAST DNA sequence similarity search using the AsFMOL sequence as query.

    (PDF)

    S5 Table. Short-read sequencing-based gene expression analysis.

    Read count quantification was preformed using the NCBI BLAST tool. The word size parameter was set at 64. The AsBGNL and AsFMOL sequences were used as query sequence.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES