Assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in rose by high-throughput sequencing analysis.

The endophytic bacterial diversity of rose was analyzed by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rDNA and functional prediction of the bacterial community. The number of bacterial sequence reads obtained from 18 rose samples ranged from 63,951 to 114,833, and reads were allocated to 1982 OTUs based on sequences of the V3-V4 region. The highest Shannon Index was found in Luogang rose (1.93), while the lowest was found in Grasse rose (0.35). The bacterial sequence reads were grouped into three different phyla: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria. At the genus level, Bacillus and Staphylococcus had the highest abundance across all 18 samples; Bacillus was particularly abundant in Daguo rose (99.09%), Rosa damascena (99.65%), and Fenghua rose (99.58%). Unclassified OTUs were also found in all samples. PICRUSt gene prediction revealed that each endophyte sample contained multiple KEGG functional modules related to human metabolism and health. A high abundance of functional genes were involved in (1) Amino Acid Metabolism, (2) Carbohydrate Metabolism, (3) Cellular Processes and Signaling, (4) Energy Metabolism, and (5) Membrane Transport, indicating that the endophytic community comprised a wide variety of microorganisms and genes that could be used for further studies. The rose endophytic bacterial community is rich in diversity; community composition varies among roses and contains functional information related to human health.

Introduction

Rose is a deciduous shrub of the genus Rosa from the Rosaceae family. Roses typically grow in sunny locations and are tolerant of cold and drought. They are perennial flowering plants found throughout the world, especially in subtropical and temperate regions of the northern hemisphere [1]. The species and community composition of endophytic bacteria are essential to the growth of roses, affecting both their quality and their susceptibility to disease. Endophytic bacteria are a group of microorganisms that are symbiotic, parasitic, or saprophytic on host plants [2]. They can colonize niches similar to vascular wilt endophytes from Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp, exhibit antibacterial properties against human pathogens, and produce enzymes of multidrug resistance similar to clinical strains [3]. Some substances secreted from bacteria affect plant physiology by interacting with plant growth regulators. For example, interactions between endophytes and Echinacea affect plant secondary metabolite content, bacterial colonization specificity, and plant growth [4]. Endophytic bacterial diversity is also an important resource for the treatment of environmental pollutants and the improvement of human health. Islam et al. (2019) found that endophytic bacteria from Ginkgo biloba were potential candidates for controlling serious foodborne pathogens, either by themselves or through their metabolites [5]. The physiological functions of endophytic bacteria have also received increased attention. Hung et al. (2007) found that most of the isolates from soybean were motile and produced indole acetic acid; 70% and 33% of the isolates secreted cellulase and pectinase, respectively [6]. Pan et al. (2015) isolated four endophytic bacterial strains from wheat, all of which significantly reduced fungal growth and spore germination of Fusarium graminearum [7]. Microorganisms may benefit from the supply of nutrients to plant pathogens, making them beneficial as potential biocontrol agents against blight [8]. On the other hand, plants may increase the absorption of nutrients due to the presence of microorganisms in their tissues, enhancing their ability to survive adversity [9].

Culture-based and non-culture-based techniques were used to study the microbial diversity of endophytic bacteria. Although often using a culture-based approach, they cannot capture non-culturable microorganisms. Therefore, molecular biology-based methods are more accurate and reliable for identifying culturable and non-cultivable microorganisms [10]. High-throughput sequencing produces large amounts of data and shows good repeatability between samples. It greatly expands the field of microbiology ecology, more accurately identifies microbial diversity and flora structure, including those that are difficult to cultivate and / or exist at low levels, and enables a more comprehensive analysis of microbial diversity [11]. PICRUS is a technique that analyzes the functional composition of an existing sequenced microbial genome, and infers the composition of functional genes in the sample through 16S data and a reference genome database to analyze the functional differences between different samples and groups. and is widely used in humans, soils, plants and other mammals. The predicted correlation between the gene content and the metagenomic assay was 84%-95%, and the functional analysis of intestinal microbial flora and soil flora was close to 95%, which could well reflect the functional gene composition in the samples.[12].

Rose is an important economic and medicinal crop. At present, research on roses focuses mainly on flower quality evaluation, processing techniques, and the extraction of pigments and essential oils [13-15]. Roses are rich in vitamins, amino acids, and many functional components that benefit health conditions such as inflammation, hematemesis, and diarrhea. At the same time, rose possesses cosmetic and skin-moisturizing properties, can help reduce pain, functions as an aromatic deodorant, and invigorates the spleen. Its medicinal value is extremely high [16-18]. It is therefore worthwhile to explore the diversity and function of rose endophytic bacteria because they affect the functional properties of the roses themselves. In previous studies, endophytic bacteria of Glycine max [6], Triticum aestivum [7], Brassica napus [19], and Oryza sativa [20] were extensively documented; however, endophytic bacteria of roses have received little attention. In present study, high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatic analysis of 16S rDNA was performed to explore the diversity and potential functions of endophytic bacteria from rose. The results of this study will help researchers exploit the beneficial endophyte resources of rose, screen for beneficial microorganisms in rose petals and control potentially harmful endophytes. Provide a certain reference for some functional gene research and screening of specific gene functional microorganisms through PICRUSt function analysis.

Materials and methods

Sample preparation

The 18 rose varieties have a large planting area and a wide planting area in China. Each rose is planted over 10hm2 at the sampling site. Eighteen rose varieties were selected, including Rosa rugosa x Rosa sertata (KS, Gansu), Hetian rose (HT, Xinjiang), Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ (BJ, Beijing), Luogang rose (GL, Guangzhou), Gansu Rosa rugosa x Rosa sertata (GKS, Gansu), Grasse rose (GLS), Rosa davurica x Rosa rugosa ‘Plena’ (Zr), Fenghua rose (FH), Daguo rose (DG), Heze rose (HZ), Rosa damascena (DM), Rosa rugosa ‘Plena’ (CBH), Shanci rose (PY), Rosa rugosa ‘Alba Plena’ (CBB), Bulgaria red rose (BH), Soviet rose (SL), Bulgaria white rose (BB), and Rose centifolia (XS) from Shandong province. The rose samples were delivered to the laboratory at low temperature (4°C).

Rose samples were surface sterilized according to the protocol of [21] with some modifications. The surface of the rose sample is sterilized by rinsing with sterile water, and the last rinsed water (0.01mL) were spread onto the Plate Count Agar (PCA) to check the sterilization effect. Samples with completely sterile surfaces were rinsed with distilled water more than three times to remove the remaining microbial DNA. Approximately 2.0 g of surface-sterilized sample was ground in a mortar with quartz sand, then placed in 9 ml of normal saline. Samples were serially diluted, spread on Luria-Bertani (LB) liquid media plates, and incubated at 37°C for 48–72 h. All microorganisms were preserved at –20°C in LB broth containing 10% glycerol (v/v) and freeze-dried.

DNA extraction and Illumina high-throughput sequencing

Microbial DNA was extracted from the samples using the E.Z.N.A.TM Mag-Bind Soil DNA Kit (OMEGA, USA), and the concentration of DNA in each extraction was determined using 1% agarose gel electrophoresis.

The V3 and V4 variable regions of the bacterial 16S rDNA gene were amplified using the primer 341F (CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG) and 805R (GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC). The DNA was denatured with the following protocol: 95°C for 3 min, followed by 27 cycles of 95°C for 45 s, 55°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 45 s, with a final extension of 72°C for 10 min. The PCR products were purified and then sequenced using MiSeq Illumina platform (Illumina, USA) at Sangon Biotech Co, Ltd (Shanghai, China) [22, 23].

Data analysis

High quality sequences are extracted using CASAVA packages. The raw sequences were filtered by length and quality, amplicon primers were removed, and small fragments were thrown away. The unique sequence set was classified into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with UC LUST, using a similarity threshold of 97% identity. The R Venn Diagram package (1.6.16) was used to analyze the numbers of shared and unique OTUs among the 18 samples [24]. Chao1 and ACE indexes were used to estimate the OTU richness, and Shannon and Simpson indexes were used to evaluate the bacterial diversity. Higher Shannon index and lower Simpson index indicate higher microbial diversity [25, 26]. The principal component analysis (PCA) method is designed to use the idea of dimensionality reduction to transform multiple indicators into a few comprehensive indicators, which can be used to analyze the microbial community composition of samples [27]. Heat map analysis and a Bray-Curtis-based multiple sample similarity tree were used to examine similarities and differences in microbial community structure among the samples. We used the PICRUSt package to infer the potential genetic capacity of bacterial communities, to assess the specific contribution of individual taxa to the metagenic genome, and to annotate the predictive functional genes using the KEGG database [12].

Results

Richness and diversity analysis of bacterial communities

To investigate microbial community composition, reads were classified to OTUs to identify bacterial microorganisms present in rose samples. The final number of reads of the bacterial sequence in each sample ranged from 63,951 to 114,833. The reads were allocated to 1982 OTUs based on a similarity threshold of 97% identity.

Rarefaction analysis

Rarefaction curve can be used to compare the richness of samples with different sequencing Numbers, and to evaluate whether the sample size represents the diversity of the original samples [28]. The rarefaction and Shannon curves of bacterial communities classified based on 97% similarity OTU are shown in Fig 1A and 1B. Bacterial diversity reached an asymptote, which indicated that this sequence could well represent the bacterial diversity of 18 rose samples.

Fig 1

Rarefaction curves (A) and Shannon curves (B) of endophytic bacteria of rose with 97% similar of 16S rDNA.

Bacterial alpha diversity

Bacterial alpha diversity indices, including the Chao1, ACE, Shannon, and Simpson indices, are presented in Table 1. In all samples, the Good's coverage of bacterial OTUs was 100%, indicating that the major bacterial OTUs had been captured [29]. The CBH sample had the highest values for the Chao1 and ACE indices, indicating that its richness was high compared to the other samples. The GL sample had the highest value of the Shannon index and the lowest value of the Simpson index. It shows that the diversity is higher than other samples.

Table 1

The Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) for rose.

Sample	Seq-num	OTU-num	Shannon-index	ACE-index	Chao1-index	Coverage	Simpson
BB	92459	137	0.95	383.27	208.08	1.00	0.50
BH	68010	280	1.17	968.73	567.02	1.00	0.50
BJ	87420	206	1.15	720.26	378.86	1.00	0.46
CBB	79877	286	1.21	990.05	597.25	1.00	0.51
CBH	111761	464	0.49	2460.09	1131.81	1.00	0.79
DG	72940	271	0.59	1578.86	905.41	1.00	0.76
DM	73774	272	0.47	1947.12	884.62	1.00	0.84
FH	74324	267	0.89	878.92	795.95	1.00	0.51
GKS	67582	387	0.83	1430.72	867.48	1.00	0.59
GL	86065	399	1.93	1355.51	720.47	1.00	0.22
GLS	102820	220	0.35	1137.62	597.50	1.00	0.89
HT	100896	392	0.83	2077.18	977.67	1.00	0.65
HZ	87272	353	1.39	999.49	630.82	1.00	0.32
KS	92229	264	1.09	1336.59	618.90	1.00	0.53
PY	65964	145	0.75	408.09	268.00	1.00	0.54
SL	76317	224	0.48	1131.93	554.78	1.00	0.81
XS	61837	397	0.65	1237.03	730.49	1.00	0.75
Zr	82760	491	0.99	1089.63	1101.50	1.00	0.58

Diversity among bacterial communities in rose samples

A Venn diagram was established to evaluate the distribution of OTUs among different samples (Fig 2A). Between 5 and 50 OTUs were obtained from the 18 rose samples. The GL sample had the greatest number (50 OTUs), and the DG sample had the fewest (5 OTUs). Only one OTU was shared among all 18 rose samples, highlighting the fact that the bacterial communities of different roses are very different.

Fig 2

Venn diagrams (A) and PCA analysis (B) of the multiple samples according to bacterial diversity.

Relative abundance of bacterial communities

A total of three phyla, six classes, 13 orders, 24 families, and 38 genera were identified by Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) classifier. Fig 3A and 3B show the relative abundance of bacteria at the phylum and genus levels, respectively. Only phyla with a relative abundance values ≥ 0.01% of the bacterial community are displayed. The bacterial sequence reads were grouped into three different phyla: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria. Firmicutes had the highest total abundance in all samples, especially in HZ (100%) and Zr (100%). At the genus level, the top five bacterial groups were Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Pantoea, Paenibacillus, and unclassified. These five groups showed significant differences in composition among samples. Bacillus had the highest total abundance in all 18 samples, particularly in DG (99.09%), DM (99.65%), and FH (99.58%). Pediococcus was detected only in the BB sample (65.57%); in the other samples, its abundance was extremely low (<0.01%) or undetectable. Sequences that were designated as unclassified could not be classified based on currently available taxonomic reference data. An unclassified genus was the predominant genus in the GL (19.04%) and PY samples (33.02%), indicating that a large number of unknown genera may exist in some rose samples.

Fig 3

Relative abundance of bacterial community at phylum (A) and genus (B) level based on 97% sequence similarity.

The bacterial community PCA is shown Fig 2B. There was significant separation of bacterial communities from different samples, and the first, second, and third PC axes explained 85%, 5% and 4% of the variance in bacterial species, respectively. The analysis revealed similarity between the GL and HZ samples and among the HT, KS, KS, XS, GKS, SL, BH, PY, CBH, DM, DG, FH, Zr, and GLS samples. These results confirmed that bacterial species composition among the 18 rose samples was extremely variable.

Bacterial community comparisons

Fig 4A shows a heat map of bacterial abundance at the genus level for the 18 endophytic bacterial communities. The heat map can reflect the relative abundance of the bacterial community by color changes, and the blue to red gradient indicates the relative abundance from low to high. The heat map also shows the high abundance of Bacillus in all samples, as well as the dominance of Pediococcus in BB and its absence in other samples. This result is consistent with the previous analysis of the relative abundance of the bacterial community in Fig 3B.

Fig 4

Bacterial community heat map analysis at the genus level (A). Hierarchical cluster tree for bacteria (B).

Bray-curtis dissimilarity was used to evaluate the differences in species composition, and to calculate the quantitative characteristics of species composition in biological samples. Two groups of samples were similar: (1) GL and HZ and (2) HT, KS, KS, XS, GKS, SL, BH, PY, CBH, DM, DG, FH, Zr, and GLS. CBB, BB, and PY existed as unique samples (Fig 4B). This result is consistent with the previous analysis of the relative abundance analysis for the bacterial communities.

Functional gene prediction

The heat map results based on PICRUSt functional gene predictive analysis is presented in Fig 5. The heat map can reflect the relative abundance of gene function predicted by PICRUSt through color changes, and the blue to red gradient indicates the relative abundance from low to high. In this study, we identified 329 different predicted functions, which were divided into 42 functional modules. The most abundant included (1) Amino Acid Metabolism, (2) Carbohydrate Metabolism., (3) Cellular Processes and Signaling, (4) Energy Metabolism, (5) Membrane Transport, (6) Poorly Characterized, (7) Replication and Repair, and (8) Xenobiotic Biodegradation and Metabolism. The heat map indicated that the function abundances of GL, PY and CBB samples were higher than those of other samples.

Fig 5

Heat map of predicted functional pathways assigned to interesting genes investigated in bacteria of rose.

Discussion

We assessed the microbial endophyte composition of rose using high-throughput sequencing. Based on the OTUs from each sample, their relative abundances, and Rarefaction analysis (Table 1), indicating that there were abundant endophytic bacteria in the sampled roses. At the phyla level (Fig 3A). These results are consistent with previous findings that endophytic bacteria are mainly distributed among the Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria. The most abundant groups in Trewia nudiflora were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes [30]. Similarly, Bodenhausen et al. (2013) analyzed the microbial diversity of Arabidopsis thaliana leaves and roots by 454 pyrophosphate, and the dominant bacteria were proteobacteria, actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes [31], and Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroides, and Actinobacteria were the dominant phyla in Brassica napus seeds [32]. At the phyla level (Fig 3B), Bacillus may therefore be a core genus and a common predominant genus in roses. In addition, unclassified OTUs were common in all rose samples; further research is required to identify the unclassified bacteria that constitute such a large percentage of rose bacterial communities. In this study, Pediococcus was detected only in BB (65.57%), while in other samples its abundance was extremely low (<0.01%) or undetectable. This result may be due to the cultivar type and/or the growing environment. However, Ozgül et al. (2011) showed that 33 dominant genera were found across the soil, including eight Actinobacteria, six Acidobacteria, five α-Proteobacteria, four γ-Proteobacteria, and three Bacteriodetes [33]. Chen et al. (2018) found that the most abundant groups in Salvia miltiorrhiza seeds were γ-Proteobacteria (67.6%), α-Proteobacteria (15.6%), Sphingobacteria (5.0%), and Bacilli (4.6%) [34]. Rybakova et al. (2017) reported that Ralstonia, Acetobacteraceae, Bacillus, and Mesorhizobium were the most abundant genera in Brassica napus seeds [32]. Our results suggest that the endophytic bacteria of rose are different from other plants at the genus level. This result may reflect differences in soil and soil composition (pH, organic matter, available phosphorus, etc.) that provide different environments for endophytic bacteria. Plant endophytic bacterial communities are also affected by plant type. Both these factors affect microbial diversity and microbial interactions in soils [35]. Beneduzi et al. (2013) analyzed plant growth promotion (PGP) bacteria in sugarcane rhizosphere soil, roots and stems by 16S rDNA PCR-RFLP, and found that soil pH and clay were the factors most closely related to bacterial diversity [36]. Environmental factors in different field locations and years had much more influence on microbial rhizosphere community than plant genotypes. [35]. On the other hand, differences in exudation from different plants led to differences in plant endophyte communities; the planting and growing period of plants have effects on microbial diversity and flora structure under some circumstances. The growth period of plants has an effect on the microbial diversity and microbial community structure of potato Rhizosphere in sandy soil with different organic compounds [37]. Likewise, plant tissue and growth stage had significant effects on the endophytic bacterial community structure of leaves, stems, and roots of Stellera chamaejasme in northwestern China [38].

PICRUSt provides a convenient method for predicting the function of endophytic bacteria using functional analysis of metagenomic sequencing data and the 16s prediction function. In this study, PICRUSt was used to predict the gene function of rose petal microbial community based on 16S rRNA amplicon prediction results (Fig 5). Many studies have also emphasized the importance of microbial metabolism and microbial functional genes in cell behavior and activity, natural product biosynthesis, and other metabolic processes. The presence of H. nitritophilus and P. viridiflava on maize balanced cell osmotic pressure and antagonized the pathogen Ustilago maydis [39]. Abia et al. (2017) analyzed river water and sediment microbial diversity through high-throughput analysis and predicted its functional genes through functional maps [40]. Genes relevant to metabolism can influence plant growth, and beneficial bacteria can synthesize and secrete secondary bio-active metabolites that inhibit the spread of soil disease and maintain host plant health; the endophytic bacteria of rose may perform such functions. A high abundance of functional genes involved in nitrogen metabolism was detected in aging flue-cured tobaccos [41].

Conclusions

The high-throughput sequencing of 16S rDNA from 18 rose bacterial endophyte communities revealed that the communities were composed of three dominant phyla (Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria) and five dominant genera (Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Pantoea, PaeniBacillus, and unclassified). There was no significant difference among rose endophytic bacterial communities at the phylum level, but there were significant differences at the genus level. Gene families related to (1) Amino Acid Metabolism, (2) Carbohydrate Metabolism, (3) Cellular Processes and Signaling, (4) Energy Metabolism, and (5) Membrane Transport were identified in rose endophytic bacteria. The results of this preliminary study show that the endophytic composition of rose has unique characteristics in population composition and potential function. Further research may be able to isolate the rose endophytic bacterial strains and screen them for potential medicinal and industrial applications, such as pest control and the production of antibacterial and anticancer compounds, macromolecule-degrading enzymes, and other active substances.

6 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30114

Assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in Rose by high-throughput sequencing analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Liu_Yun-Guo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aradhana Mishra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. 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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: 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 manuscript reports on assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in rose using 16 S high throughput sequencing. The paper can be of interest to researchers working in the area of microbial diversity and microbial technologies. However, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form. The authors need to satisfactorily address the following queries:

1. What was the criterion for selecting the 18 rose varieties not mentioned?

2. Whether the sequences were submitted to GenBank is also not mentioned?

3. How many biological and technical replicates were used for sequencing?

4. It would have been better if authors would also have performed gene expression analysis to confirm the abundance of specific sequences as per high throughput sequencing results?

5. Authors should also provide in details a commentary on future perspectives of the present study in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which concerns the composition and potential function of bacterial endophytes of rose. I have the following comments for the authors.

1. Clarification is needed to improve the methods.

- The specific questions to be addressed should be stated, the methods should be centered on those questions, and the inferences made from those questions should be clear. At the moment the paper reads like a 'large set of data, with some figures about the data' rather than as inference with a meaningful scope of inference.

- How many plants of each location/variety were used? What plant tissues? How many tissue samples? Without this information there can be no meaningful comparison among rose varieties / locations. Because there seems to be no replication there are no statistics regarding the comparisons of richness/etc. There should be no PCA without replication. There should be no bacterial community comparisons without replication.

- Please provide evidence that the sterilization method for the tissue surfaces remove the remnant DNA of epiphytes, even if the cells are not viable.

- Please provide the needed information about negative controls for the high-throughput sequencing.

- I don't understand the methods -- could the authors please clarify: it seems they cultured, then used high-throughput sequencing on the cultures?

- Far more information is needed about quality control and data preparation.

- A Venn diagram is a visualization, not an analysis per se; the authors should please revise the entire methods section to distinguish between visualization methods and actual analyses.

- The authors make statements that imply they have information about abundance; what positive controls were used to relate read abundance to biological abundance?

- I don't understand how the authors made functional gene predictions from 16S in a meaningful way. I understand the role of PIECRUST but would argue that far more information is needed to 100% validate these functional gene predictions. I strongly suggest much more caution in the presentation and interpretation of these results. We know of many bacteria with identical 16S but totally different functional traits.

2. The results, discussion, and conclusions generally are overlapping so much in content as to feel repetitive.

3. The authors state that all data are in the manuscript/supplements, but in the version I received the only supplement is an English-language editor's tracked changes.

**********

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: Dr. Charu Lata

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

15 Jan 2020

Reviewer #1:

1. The criterion for selecting the 18 rose varieties is that these 18 varieties have a large planting area and a wide planting area in China. Each rose is planted over 10hm2 at the sampling site.

2. These sequences have not been submitted to GenBank and can be submitted later if necessary.

3. High throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies, such as 454 pyrosequencing and Illumina sequencing, have been extensively developed and used to explore the microbial diversity of Triticum aestivum L, Oryza sativa L, fue-cured tobaccos, Jasminum sambac (L.) Ait, etc.

4. The gene expression analysis results were obtained by comparing the functional analysis of metagenomic sequencing data with the corresponding 16s predictive function analysis results.

5. I have added more details to comment on the future prospects of the present study in the manuscript.

In all, I found the reviewer’s comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper point-by-point. Thank you and the review again for your help!

Reviewer #2:

1.I quite appreciate your favorite consideration and insightful comments and found these comments are very helpful. I have modified it according to your suggestion.

The 18 rose varieties have a large planting area and a wide planting area in China. Each rose is planted over 10hm2 at the sampling site. Plant tissue is rose petals. Each rose petal sample comes from more than 3 roses, and the growth distance exceeds 100 meters. Sample processing reference Wang et al. (2018), (Wu et al., 2016) with some modifications.

The surface of the rose sample is sterilized by rinsing with sterile water, and the last rinsed water (0.01mL) were spread onto the Plate Count Agar (PCA) to check the sterilization effect. Samples with completely sterile surfaces were rinsed with distilled water more than three times to remove the remaining microbial DNA.

Rose petal samples have negative controls when amplifying bacterial DNA, and only the successfully amplified samples are sequenced.

Because the bacterial DNA content directly amplified is relatively low in rose petal samples, Because of the low content of bacterial DNA directly amplified in rose petal samples, the microbial diversity was analyzed by liquid culture and enrichment.

I describe more detail the quality control and data preparation information in the manuscript.

Regarding the venn diagram, I have modified it in the manuscript.

The functional gene predictions results were obtained by comparing the functional analysis of metagenomic sequencing data with the corresponding 16s predictive function analysis results. The accuracy of this method is 84% to 95%. The gene prediction is an inference in this article. The accuracy of 16S functional gene prediction can be referred to Langille et al. (2013). Thanks for your suggestion, I will more caution in the presentation and interpretation of these results.

2. I have revised the content of the results, discussion and conclusion.

3. If you need any more data, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

4 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-30114R1

Assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in Rose by high-throughput sequencing analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Liu_Yun-Guo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aradhana Mishra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Comment

Although MS written well and illustrate the diversity; community composition of endophytes in native roses. The manuscript could be accepable for publication after the correction of following points.

1. MS should be check for plagiarism through authentic resources like turnitin or other acceptable software. This MS showed 22% plagiarism from different published resources like

i. Afusat Yinka Aregbe, Taihua Mu, Hongnan Sun. "Effect of different pretreatment on the microbial diversity of fermented potato revealed by high throughput sequencing" , Food Chemistry, 2019 (3% plagiarism from this paper).

ii. Amb-express.springeropen.com (3% plagiarism from this paper).

iii. Xinhui Wang, Songhu Wang, Hai Zhao. "Unraveling microbial community diversity and succession of Chinese Sichuan sausages during spontaneous fermentation by high throughput sequencing" , Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2019 (3% plagiarism from this paper).

Manuscript should be thoroughly revised. MS should not have match the same paragraph with other published article. Moreover, references mention in MS should be of original research articles.

2. References should be in journal format.

**********

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: Dr. Charu Lata

Reviewer #3: Yes: sumit kumar soni

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

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

Submitted filename: Comment_PONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Feb 2020

Reviewer #3:

1. I have modified the content that may involve plagiarism.

2. The reference format has been modified.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

12 Mar 2020

Assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in Rose by high-throughput sequencing analysis

PONE-D-19-30114R2

Dear Dr. Liu Yun-Guo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Aradhana Mishra, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The comment raised in revision first has been corrected by the authors. The Manuscript now can be accepted in current form.

**********

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: Charu Lata

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Sumit Kumar Soni

16 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-30114R2

Assessment of endophytic bacterial diversity in Rose by high-throughput sequencing analysis

Dear Dr. Liu:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aradhana Mishra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE