Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T13:53:18.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2022

Maxwell R. McReynolds
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Linkan Dash
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Christian Montes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Melissa A. Draves
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Michelle G. Lang
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA Corteva Agriscience, Johnston, Iowa 50131, USA
Justin W. Walley*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Dior R. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
*
Authors for correspondence: D. R. Kelley and J. W. Walley, E-mail: dkelley@iastate.edu; jwalley@iastate.edu
Authors for correspondence: D. R. Kelley and J. W. Walley, E-mail: dkelley@iastate.edu; jwalley@iastate.edu

Abstract

Auxin is a key regulator of root morphogenesis across angiosperms. To better understand auxin-regulated networks underlying maize root development, we have characterized auxin-responsive transcription across two time points (30 and 120 min) and four regions of the primary root: the meristematic zone, elongation zone, cortex and stele. Hundreds of auxin-regulated genes involved in diverse biological processes were quantified in these different root regions. In general, most auxin-regulated genes are region unique and are predominantly observed in differentiated tissues compared with the root meristem. Auxin gene regulatory networks were reconstructed with these data to identify key transcription factors that may underlie auxin responses in maize roots. Additionally, Auxin-Response Factor subnetworks were generated to identify target genes that exhibit tissue or temporal specificity in response to auxin. These networks describe novel molecular connections underlying maize root development and provide a foundation for functional genomic studies in a key crop.

Information

Type
Original Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Identification of auxin-responsive genes across four key regions of the primary maize root. (a) Picture of maize primary dissected root regions profiled in this study. Five-day-old primary maize roots were dissected into the four regions indicated. The distal 2 mm of the root tip corresponds to the meristematic zone (MZ). The elongation zone (EZ) is the proximal zone adjacent to the MZ root tip up to where the root hairs emerge. The differentiation zone, starting with the root hair zone, was mechanically separated into cortex (C) and stele (S) by snapping the root from the kernel and pulling the stele out from the cortex. Scale bar = 1 cm. (b) Differentially expressed genes within each root region at 30 min (t30) and 120 min (t120) were identified by comparing 10 □M indole-3-acetic acid (auxin) treated samples to mock-treated samples at q < 0.1. The x-axes represent the number of DE genes. (c) Heatmaps ordered by hierarchical clustering of the genes that are DE in response to auxin within each tissue profiled. Hierarchical clustering was independently carried out within each tissue.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. A comparison of differentially expressed genes in maize roots across four regions at two different time points in response to auxin. (a) UpSet plot of differentially expressed transcripts at 30 min (t30). (b) UpSet plot of auxin-responsive DE transcripts at 120 min (t120). Concordant and discordant comparisons are indicated in green and vermillion, respectively. Only the top 20 most populated intersections are visualized. Abbreviations: auxin, indole-3-acetic acid treatment compared with mock treatment; C, cortex; EZ, elongation zone; MZ, meristematic zone; S, stele, auxin.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Auxin-responsive genes between root regions are enriched in several gene ontology (GO) terms related to biological processes. Significant GO terms of interest in auxin down-regulated genes (“down”) and auxin up-regulated genes (“up”) are indicated on the y-axis. Only tissues with enriched GO terms are shown. False discovery rate (FDR) is color-coded from blue (0.00) to red (0.05). Size of the dot indicates the number of enriched genes within each GO term. Abbreviations: C, cortex; EZ, elongation zone; MZ, meristematic zone; S, stele, t30 = 30 min, t120 = 120 min.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. A spatiotemporal auxin-responsive gene regulatory network in maize primary roots. The nodes (genes) are arranged in numbered circles to represent groupings of nodes (genes) that clustered together and were enriched within the same tissues. Colored nodes represent genes that are differentially expressed following auxin treatment. The temporal response to auxin is indicated by node color: blue, auxin responsive at 30 min; vermillion, auxin responsive at 120 min; and green, auxin responsive at both time points sampled. Each circular node represents a distinct cluster based on tissue: 1 = C + S, 2 = C, 3 = MZ, 4 = S, 5 = EZ, 6 = EZ + S, 7 = MZ + S, 8 = MZ + EZ, 9 = EZ + C, 10 = MZ + C, 11 = EZ + C + S, 12 = MZ + C + S, 13 = MZ + EZ + S, 14 = MZ + EZ + C (Abbreviations: C, cortex; EZ, elongation zone; MZ, meristematic zone; S, stele).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Auxin-Response Factor (ARF) transcription factor gene regulatory subnetworks associated with primary maize roots. (a) ARF expression across tissues at t30 and t120 auxin treatments. (b) ARF GRN networks arranged by clade classification: Clade A, Clade B, Clade C, or ETTIN-Like. The central enlarged pink nodes within each network represent the ARF of interest labeled above the network and the connected small nodes represent that ARFs target genes. Target genes are colored according to the directionality of their transcript expression in response to auxin: grey, no significant transcript change; vermillion, decreased transcript level; blue, increased transcript level.

Supplementary material: File

McReynolds et al. supplementary material

McReynolds et al. supplementary material

Download McReynolds et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26.4 MB

Author comment: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R0/PR1

Comments

January 28, 2022

Dear Editors,

We wish to submit a manuscript entitled “Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots” for consideration by Quantitative Plant Biology as an original research article. We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Auxin is a classical phytohormone that is well known to regulate gene expression in planta. An outstanding question in the field is how auxin responsive gene networks are shaped in key crops such as Zea mays (corn). In this manuscript, we have characterized auxin-mediated transcriptome profiles across four regions of maize primary roots at two time points (30 and 120 minutes) using 3’ end mRNA sequencing. These transcriptomic data is a high-quality resource that will be useful for researchers working at molecular scales across laboratory and field sources. We identified differentially expressed genes across temporal and spatial scales that are up- and down-regulated by auxin based on these data. Auxin regulated genes within maize root regions are enriched in biological processes such as cell cycle control and hormone signaling. Furthermore, using these data we have reconstructed auxin responsive gene regulatory networks (GRNs). We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Quantitative Plant Biology because it fits well with the journal scope to support large dataset resources and incorporate correlative data to generate robust predictions.

If you feel that the manuscript is appropriate for your journal, we suggest the following reviewers based on their expertise in these areas:

Matthew Brooks (USDA ARS; mb5886@illinois.edu)

Andrea Eveland (Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; aeveland@danforthcenter.org)

Bastiaan Bargmann (Virginia Tech; bastiaan@vt.edu)

Gloria Muday (Wake Forest muday@wfu.edu)

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to jwalley@iastate.edu or dkelley@iastate.edu (co-corresponding authors). Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dior R. Kelley & Justin W. Walley

Iowa State University

Review: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: QPB-21-0035 Review

The manuscript by McReynolds et al. titled “Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots” describes a study on the transcriptomic responses to auxin treatment in separate regions of the maize seedling root and at two timepoints after treatment. Results indicate that different regions of the root respond with significant differences in which genes are differentially expressed as well as the number of genes that are regulated. The authors go on to perform gene regulatory network analysis and look specifically at Auxin Response Factor subnetwoks. The generated data could be of value for further functional genomic studies of the auxin response in maize.

I believe this work is suitable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology but the manuscript will require some revision before it is ready for publication. The main concern is a need for more discussion of the results in comparison to previous studies of the auxin response in maize seedlings, a better visualization of the differential gene expression, and further discussion of the network analysis results. Additionally, there is room for improvement in the way the manuscript is written in certain sections. These issues are listed in more detail below.

Major points:

1. The authors present data on the response in distinct regions of the root, but how does that compare to the genes that can be seen to be differentially expressed when looking at the intact root, or entire seedling (Galli et al., 2018)? Does this increased spatial resolution allow for the detection of regulated genes that could not be seen on the organ or seedling level?

2. It would be beneficial to see a heatmap representation of differential gene expression (tissues and treatments in columns, hierarchically clustered genes in rows) for both timepoints rather than just the visualization of the number of responding genes that is included now.

3. Although gene regulatory network analysis is performed, how it is done could be explained better and what conclusions could be drawn from these results could be discussed in more detail.

Minor points:

1. Line 67: please add “the” before TOPLESS

2. Line 91 and 97: unless this is a reference to how others have called these procedures, there is no need to name these procedures “rolled towel” or “cigar roll”

3. Line 98: instead of 0.5X, please state the amount used in g/l

4. Line 103 and elsewhere throughout the manuscript: please only introduce an abbreviation if it is going to be used again later on, and only do so once (e.g. DAG, MZ, EZ etc.)

5. Line 105: 10 uM is the final concentration and the stock is dissolved in 95% ethanol, please state this clearly in the text

6. Line 118: “Trizol/RNeasy hybrid” is not mentioned in Walley et al., 2010 and no QIAGEN kit is used here, please explain the procedure used here directly

7. Line 121-122 and 125-6: please remove the facility references, which facility was involved is inconsequential

8. Line 129: please state what kind of raw sequence files were deposited

9. Line 131: please reference the suggested mapping pipeline (BlueBee website?)

10. Line 142: please use passive rather than first-person writing for consistency

11. Line 154: please provide the additional code

12. Line 158: please explain which false discovery rate correction was used

13. Line 172: please clarify, 32,832 distinct transcripts?

14. Line 176-178: please provide some references that could back up this speculation, or explain why this would lead to less of a transcriptional response

15. Line 198: please use 120 min instead of 2 hours for consistency

16. Line 235: please use construct instead of reconstruct

17. Line 243: please remove etc.

18. Line 255: please remove other

19. Line 263 and Fig 5: does this mean DE at either of the two timepoints?

20. Line 269 and 270: please remove compared to one another and with one another

21. Line 447: is this a micrograph or just a picture? please include a scale bar in the figure

22. Line 459 and other legends: please be consistent in color indications (green, blue, bluish green…)

23. Line 460: auxin is not a used abbreviation, please indicate the concentration of IAA used

24. please review punctuation throughout the text

Review: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: This article examines the transcriptional responses to elevated auxin in four regions of maize roots. The generated data is examined for changes in transcript abundance across these tissues and gene regulatory networks are predicted by network modeling. The resulting tissue specific auxin response dataset and resulting gene regulatory networks (GRNs) will provide valuable information for those studying auxin response networks in maize. Some additions to this article will make the data even more informative for those seeking to understand maize growth and development and the GRNs that control the auxin responses and developmental changes. These suggestions are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The authors clearly state (in the last sentence of the introduction) that their goal is to generate novel auxin driven predictive GRNs that underly maize root morphogenesis, but inclusion of data/images to show or explain how the treatment with exogenous IAA alters maize root development would help connect transcriptional changes to development. Since there are very different transcriptional responses in different tissues, it would be helpful to overlay these responses on developmental responses in the root regions sampled in this analysis. The authors suggest tissues with fewer transcriptional responses may exhibit few developmental responses to this treatment (lines 181-183) and could support this idea by showing the developmental response to auxin at a couple of times after treatment under their growth conditions (time of RNA Seq sampling and later points where growth or development show larger responses).

Examining transcriptional responses over time adds valuable insight into the temporal nature of transcriptional responses. The authors make this point noting the greater number of DE transcripts at 120 min of treatment in the meristem and elongation zone, but the smaller numbers in the cortex and stele. Yet, whether these are the same transcripts increasing (or decreasing) with similar kinetics or different transcripts is not clear. It would be helpful for the authors to show a heat map to reveal for each transcript whether they are changing at multiple time points and with consistent direction. Inclusion of two additional Upset plots focused on all the up regulated transcripts and a second growth with all the down regulated transcripts would quantitatively show this relationship. The current separation of data into two time points but with up and down in the same plot is not as informative (but would be a great supplemental figure) as it does show that the majority of transcripts that increase (or decrease) seem to have that pattern in one or more tissue, but only in very few cases are there opposite directional changes in different tissues. This is mentioned in lines 193-194 as discordant response (rather than the predominant concordant response), but the application of those terms to these responses were not fully explained.

The GRNs generated in this paper, the methods used to generate them, and the input data used to build them, will be of particular interest to readers of this journal. Although the S- ION method was previously published, it needs a more detailed explanation for readers of this paper. The methods indicate the SC-ION version used and what was input, but it does not explain the basis of the independent component analysis or the network inference algorithms that were used. The methods also indicate that there are genes indicated as “regulators” (DE TFs only) and it is not clear how TFs were predicted, and which TFs were found in this data. It would be valuable to include that list of DE TFs and clarify which are ARFs and what other TFs are present, perhaps as an added table or heat map.

The authors could do more to connect their results to what is know about transcriptional response to auxin in Arabidopsis and maize. I would encourage the authors to add to the discussion comparing their findings to those in Arabidopsis and other systems both in terms of transcriptional and developmental responses, to point out similarities and differences. In particular, the Galli paper is cited that reports transcriptional responses to IAA in maize seedlings and how much overlap with the transcripts in that dataset would be very informative.

Additional details that could be clarified:

1. I have two suggestions to clarify the introduction. The first paragraph begins with auxin’s central role in root development, explaining that generally, but adding details of the responses in maize roots could help inform the interpretation of their tissue transcriptional responses if the developmental responses in these zones were introduced here. The second half of this paragraph introduces maize root developmental mutants with defects in genes encoding auxin signaling proteins. This text if found before the function of those proteins are explained in the second paragraph. Perhaps these mutant descriptions could be integrated with the text beginning in lines 72 on the Galli et al paper that discussed auxin transcriptional responses in maize seedlings to occur after the signaling pathway is introduced.

2. The methods are generally clear but would benefit from the addition of information on the gene regulatory network analysis and how DE genes were identified. Was DE defined relative to the untreated time matched control? Information on why the dose of 10 µM IAA was used should be reported here or elsewhere in the paper. This is rather a high dose compared to what is used in Arabidopsis auxin transcriptional response networks but may reflect differences in responses in these two species.

3. The authors make an important point in lines 206 and following that the four up regulated transcripts in the meristem may participate in pathway feedback, which might be clarified by noting that these genes encode auxin transcriptional repressor proteins (AUX/IAA) and enzymes that degrade or conjugate auxin, rather than the more general “auxin response and auxin metabolism” description in line 207.

4. The authors point out that GO reveals that auxin repressed genes are associated the cell cycle and cell division. This is surprising as in Arabidopsis auxin induced genes have this annotation as they are turned on to drive lateral root initiation. It would helpful if the authors explained whether these cell cycle genes turn on or off cycling and/or whether this because of tissue sampled having reduced cell division. Similarly in line 228, the reference to cell wall being changed could be expanded (and a citation added).

5. In the results section the role of TF RTCS1 as driving 57 target genes is highlighted. It would be helpful if the authors explained how the model makes that prediction in this results section and what is known about this TF. The next paragraph discusses the ARFs and it would be helpful to have a visual showing which of the ARFs change and with what kinetics. Also, it is not clear the relationship between the numbering of these ARFs to the auxin ARFs and so clarifying that would help connect this to Arabidopsis networks and well characterized ARFs.

Recommendation: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R0/PR4

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Dr. Kelley and Dr. Walley,

as you can see, the reviewers found you paper interesting, however, they raised several points mainly related to data presentation and writing. Please, consider these points.

I am looking forward to see the revised version of your m/s.

best wishes,

Ari Pekka Mähönen

Decision: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R1/PR6

Comments

May 16, 2022

Dear Editors,

We wish to resubmit our manuscript entitled “Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots” for consideration by Quantitative Plant Biology as an original research article. We have worked to address all of the comments raised by the two reviewers.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to jwalley@iastate.edu or dkelley@iastate.edu (co-corresponding authors). Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dior R. Kelley & Justin W. Walley

Iowa State University

Review: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R1/PR7

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors have adequately addressed my concerns. I will be happy to see this published.

Review: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Kelly and I both serve on the North American Arabidopsis Steering Committee.

Comments

Comments to Author: This article examines the transcriptional responses to elevated auxin in four regions of maize roots. The generated data is examined for changes in transcript abundance across these tissues and gene regulatory networks are predicted by network modeling. The resulting tissue specific auxin response dataset and resulting gene regulatory networks (GRNs) will provide valuable information for those studying auxin response networks in maize, but also for those working in other species as the patterns of auxin-induced change may be similar or different between species. The authors added information to address comments in the last review and the article is improved. There are several key points that are still not clear, particularly how the modeling approach reveals gene regulatory networks, that are critical for readers of this quantitatively focused journal. Additionally, some aspects of the added data need to be further clarified. The major questions/suggestions are listed first and more detailed minor comments are listed after that.

1. Examining transcriptional responses over time adds valuable insight into the temporal nature of transcriptional responses. The authors make this point noting the greater number of DE transcripts at 120 min of treatment in the meristem and elongation zone, but the smaller numbers in the cortex and stele. Yet, whether these are the same transcripts increasing (or decreasing) with similar kinetics or different transcripts was not clear in the first submission. As requested in the last review, the authors added a heat map to reveal for each transcript whether they are changing at multiple time points and with consistent direction. The absence of explanation of this data in the text or legend limits clarity of this figure.

a. Is each row the same transcript in all four tissue types? More detail in the figure legend is needed.

b. This seems to be relative transcript abundance normalized to time matched controls, but whether this is done in each tissue type or for each tissue type is not stated. All the legend says about this comparison is that it is hierarchical clustering, but not what each row is and how the data was normalized for this plot.

c. The reason I ask the question in b is that the mock treatments are close to zero in the MZ, but there are many transcripts that are more than 2-fold different in the t30 mock in the other tissues, especially the cortex and stele, which is surprising if the authors are normalizing to the transcripts abundance in the mock treatment in that tissue.

d. Have the authors verified that these colors are visible to color blind individuals? I am not sure the red/green differences will be distinguished. A red is high, white is zero, and blue is low scale is readily visible to these individuals.

e. The text states the control was 95% ethanol for this experiment. The methods implies that the stock of IAA was in 95% ethanol which suggests it was diluted for the actual treatment, but how much is not clear. Was there a dilution of the ethanol in the mock treatment? Could the authors please clarify the final % of ethanol in both the mock and IAA treatments in the methods and results.

2. Upset plots are a great way to highlight this data. The current separation of data into two time points but with up and down in the same plot is not as informative as comparing the up regulated at both time points and the down regulated transcripts at two time points. The addition of this data should be moved from the supplement into the primary text and the current figure should be supplemental. By definition there is no transcript that can be both up and down in the same tissue at the same time (which is why the plot has connections separated by another row). The majority of the overlaps in the Figure 2 Upset plot should still be present in a comparison of transcripts that go up at two time points, as there are few opposite directional changes in different tissues. The authors nicely point this out beginning on lines 254, but an Upset plot comparing positive (or negative) changes could help support their explanation. There appear to be some errors in the new Upset plots in supplemental figure 2, as the numbers of transcripts in each group do not add up to the reported totals, so this needs to be corrected. For example, in the meristematic zone there are 6 up regulated at time 0 (from Figure 1) and there are none on that Upset plot. In the elongation zone at 30 minutes, when I add up the number of up regulated transcripts in the upset plot I get 58 transcripts, but figure 1 says that there are 93.

3. The GRNs generated in this paper, the methods used to generate them, and the input data used to build them, will be of particular interest to readers of this journal. The methods section described the S- ION method now has a more detailed explanation for readers of this paper. Yet, it is still not possible to tell what criteria lead to the predictions that specific TFs turn on other genes and a big picture explanation in the results is needed. Is it a delay in kinetics of targets relative to transcription factors? Is it parallel changes in a TF and targets? It would be really helpful to the readers of this journal, which is focused on quantitative results, if the reader could understand the features in the data recognized by the modeling algorithm. Several sentences explaining how this works need to be added to the results.

4. The authors could still do more to connect their results to what is known about transcriptional response to auxin in Arabidopsis and maize. I would encourage the authors to add to the discussion comparing their findings to those in Arabidopsis and other systems both in terms of transcriptional and developmental responses, to point out similarities and differences. For example in the Lewis et al Arabidopsis IAA time course dataset, there were transcripts that were changed over a broad range of times with enriched annotations and in the Bargmann et al paper there were cell type specific patterns of enriched annotation. Do they see similar responses in cell type or temporal responses between these two species at the level of interesting individual genes or GO annotations?

Additional details that are clearer or need to be clarified:

1. The organization of introduction is substantially improved and sets up the paper well.

2. The methods are generally clear but would benefit from the addition of information on the gene regulatory network analysis and how DE genes were identified. The methods now specify that DE genes were determined relative to time matched controls, but whether this is for each tissue sample is not stated. If so, then it is puzzling that the values on the heat map in Figure 1 are not all zero in the controls.

3. The labeling of the figures could be easier to follow if rather than saying t30 up, they labeled them 30 min up (the t makes it harder to quickly identify the number).

4. The labeling and samples could be clearer in Figure 3. It would be more intuitive if they grouped the up samples at both time points next to each other and then had stacked labels With IAA Up at the top level and then labels below them saying 30 or 120. (Such a labeling system would make reading all the figures more intuitive). Also, it is not clear why the EZ and MZ samples at 120 minutes are not on this chart.

5. Figure 4. The green and blue colors are hard to differentiate, so using two colors that are more different from each other would be helpful. Also, this relates to the questions about modeling above, but I cannot tell what criteria is used to group these genes into these 14 groupings.

6. Figure 5: I appreciate the addition of a heat map showing the changes in ARFs, but the same questions asked above for the Figure 1 heat map regarding how genes were normalized need to be clarified for this figure since the mock treatments are not at 0. Also, the text needs to clarify what criteria is used to identify nodes that are targets of ARFs. I am excited about this data, but the criteria used to group ARFs and targets needs greater clarity.

7. Line 207, 237 (and other locations), they talk about context dependent gene expression. Would it be more accurate to say tissue or cell type specific, since context could be time or other factors that are not spatial?

8. Line 214 is where the text indicates that the control was 95% ethanol, rather than a dilution of this concentrated stock to lower ethanol.

9. Line 241 refers to selection of 20 top comparisons (which I think is Figure 2A), but are they really only showing 20 genes?

10. The authors added the supplemental Upset plots, but don’t actually discuss them. As suggested above those need to be primary and discussed more fully (after checking the numbers).

11. Line 310 refers to 1372 unique TFs. Are these all DE? Or are they just present in the RNA seq? More information on the criteria for this identification would be helpful.

12. It was distracting that the line spacing differs between sections and on some pages there is a gradient of spacing from the top to the bottom of the page.

Recommendation: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R1/PR9

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Dior and Justin,

thank you for sending the revised version. As you can see, one of the reviewers still has a few points. Please, consider the relevant points, and revise the text accordingly, or explain in the Author's Response letter, if some of these requests were not justified for this m/s.

best wishes,

Ari Pekka

Decision: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R2/PR11

Comments

August 22, 2022

Dear Editors,

We wish to resubmit our second revision of the manuscript entitled “Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots” for consideration by Quantitative Plant Biology as an original research article. We have worked to fully address all of the additional comments raised by reviewer #2.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to jwalley@iastate.edu or dkelley@iastate.edu (co-corresponding authors). Thank you for the opportunity to revise our work and we look forward to a timely decision.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dior R. Kelley & Justin W. Walley

Iowa State University

Recommendation: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R2/PR12

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Dr. Walley and Dr. Kelley,

I have now read your response to Reviewer 2, and based on that I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology.

best wishes,

Ari Pekka Mähönen

Decision: Temporal and spatial auxin responsive networks in maize primary roots — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.