Manuscript review template
General comments
In this manuscript, the authors tried to evaluate low-boron tolerance strategies of B. napus using 'W10' and 'QY10', two genotypes with different sensitivity to boron deficiency.
Recently, this research group has published an excellent paper, Physiological, genomic and transcriptional diversity in responses to boron deficiency in rapeseed genotypes. Hua Y, Zhou T, Ding G, Yang Q, Shi L, Xu F. J Exp Bot. 2016 Oct;67(19):5769-5784.
In the paper, they performed physiological, genomic and transcriptional analyses of 'W10' and 'QY10'.
In the present manuscript, complementary to the previous studies, the authors focus on the roles of the cell wall in the low-boron tolerance.
It has been shown that boron crosslinks pectin polymers that play major load-bearing roles in cell wall.
Thus, the authors analyzed the cell walls of 'W10' and 'QY10' by electron microscopy (Fig. 3) and atomic force microscopy (AFM, Fig. 4 and 6). Especially, AFM analysis is the key point of this work, since very important mechanical parameter (Young's modulus) of cell wall can be determined by this method.
Chemical analyses of uronic acid and RG-II, the components of cell wall pectin, were also performed (Fig. 7). Results of gene expression analysis were also indicated (Fig. 2B, Fig. 8).
Collectively, the authors indicated differences of cell wall properties between 'W10' and 'QY10', and succeeded in showing their importance in the boron-deficiency tolerance.
I think that the research developed in this manuscript could be worth publishing after considering these points:
In Fig. 4D and Fig. 6, the values of Young's modulus are roughly 20 GPa to 70 GPa.
These values are comparable to that of glass (http://www.mse.mtu.edu/~drjohn/my4150/props.html, Tensile Modulus of glass fiber = 71 GPa, Borosilicate glass = 63.7 GPa).
There has been several studies in which Young's modulus of plant cell wall was determined by AFM or similar method.
For example, Zdunek et al. (2016) have determined the Young's modulus of the primary cell walls of pear fruits.
Their results indicated that the Young's modulus of the isolated cell wall was at range of 0.2 to 3.2 MPa in pear fruit, indicating very large inconsistency with this study.
I think that the authors need to cite previous research papers in which Young's modulus of plant cell wall was determined and discuss why the values determined in this report are extremely different from previous ones.
One difference is that Zdunek et al. (2016) analysed cell wall materials in the presence of water (added 10 min before analysis) and the authors seem not to do so.
If so, the reason why the authors performed AFM analysis of the dried materials needs to be explained.
I assume that water-swollen cell walls are more adequate to estimate mechanical properties of cell walls of living plant cells than dried ones.
Specific comments (minor and moderate remarks)
and these values were decreased when the boron concentration was diminished.
However, in Fig 4D, the average values were higher in "B 0.1" (Right).
This may be mistaken.
Accordingly, it is needed to inspect Fig. 6.
Fig. 1 of Zdunek et al. (2016) is a good example.
The stiffening of the cell walls observed during physiological softening of pears.
Zdunek A, Kozio A, Cybulska J, Lekka M, Pieczywek PM. Planta. 2016 Feb;243(2):519-29. PMID: 26498014
| Correlation | |
| Peak C - Met | 0.88 |
| Peak C - Ser | 0.84 |
| Peak C - Pro | 0.17 |
今日の天気は晴れ時々曇りだった
2017/07/29 2017/12/28
