Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T08:22:01.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2021

Chia P. Voon
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Yee-Song Law
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Xiaoqian Guan
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Shey-Li Lim
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Zhou Xu
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Wing-Tung Chu
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Renshan Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Feng Sun
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China
Mathias Labs
Affiliation:
Plant Molecular Biology, Department of Biology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
Dario Leister
Affiliation:
Plant Molecular Biology, Department of Biology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
Mathias Pribil
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Marie Hronková
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Jiří Kubásek
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Yong Cui
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell and Developmental Biology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China
Liwen Jiang
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell and Developmental Biology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China
Michito Tsuyama
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Per Gardeström
Affiliation:
Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Mikko Tikkanen
Affiliation:
Molecular Plant Biology, Department of Life Technologies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Boon L. Lim*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, China School of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell and Developmental Biology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China
*
Author for correspondence: B. L. Lim, E-mail: bllim@hku.hk

Abstract

Efficient photosynthesis requires a balance of ATP and NADPH production/consumption in chloroplasts, and the exportation of reducing equivalents from chloroplasts is important for balancing stromal ATP/NADPH ratio. Here, we showed that the overexpression of purple acid phosphatase 2 on the outer membranes of chloroplasts and mitochondria can streamline the production and consumption of reducing equivalents in these two organelles, respectively. A higher capacity of consumption of reducing equivalents in mitochondria can indirectly help chloroplasts to balance the ATP/NADPH ratio in stroma and recycle NADP+, the electron acceptors of the linear electron flow (LEF). A higher rate of ATP and NADPH production from the LEF, a higher capacity of carbon fixation by the Calvin–Benson–Bassham (CBB) cycle and a greater consumption of NADH in mitochondria enhance photosynthesis in the chloroplasts, ATP production in the mitochondria and sucrose synthesis in the cytosol and eventually boost plant growth and seed yields in the overexpression lines.

Information

Type
Original Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Comparison of the thylakoid architecture between the wild-type (WT) and overexpressing (OE) plants. Transmission electron microscopic micrograph of ultrathin sections of 20-day-old leaves from the WT, OE (OE7 and OE21) and Arabidopsis thaliana purple acid phosphatase 2 knock-out (pap2) lines. Average value (n > 30) of the diameter (nanometre) and height (nanometre) of the thylakoid in the WT and OE lines were shown. Values marked by different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05) by Student’s t-test. The diameter (nanometre) and height (nanometre) of WT chloroplasts isolated from 28-day-old leaves in another study (Armbruster et al., 2013) were 448 ± 16 and 113 ± 5 nm, respectively.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Comparative analysis of the chloroplast and mitochondrial proteomes of wild-type (WT) and OE7 plants. (a) Chloroplasts. (b) Mitochondria. Proteins from the WT fraction were prelabelled with Cy3; proteins from the overexpressing fraction were prelabelled with Cy5. Combined protein fractions were separated by 2D BN/SDS-PAGE, and the protein visualisation was carried out by laser scanning at the respective wavelengths using the Typhoon laser scanner. On the resulting overlay image, Cy3 is represented by red, and Cy5 is represented by green. Proteins with a reduced abundance in the OE7 line are shown in red; proteins with an increased abundance in the OE7 line are shown in green; proteins of equal abundance in the two compared fractions are shown in yellow. Protein spots were extracted and identified by an MS/MS analysis. Identified proteins with the highest unused score and at least two unique peptides (95%) were labelled with the corresponding spot ID (Supplementary Tables S2 and S3). The representative gel images of three biological replicates are presented.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. In vivo analysis of the electron transport activity and CO2 assimilation rate. (a) Light intensity-dependent NPQ, qP, ETR and Y(II). The 3-week-old plants were dark-acclimated for 1 hr before the measurement. Data are presented as the mean ± SE (n > 10 per line). (b) P700 oxidation. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 3 per line). Light intensity was increased in a stepwise manner as stated in the graph. (c) Light response of CO2 assimilation rates (An) under ambient CO2 concentration. Data are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 5 per line). The asterisks indicate significant differences between the wild-type and both overexpressing lines by one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD test (p < 0.05).

Figure 3

Table 1 Enzyme activities of the CBB cycle and the TCA cycle in 20-day-old plants

Figure 4

Fig. 4. A model on how efficient collaboration between chloroplasts and mitochondria promote ATP and sucrose production. ① and ② Arabidopsis thaliana purple acid phosphatase 2 on the outer membranes of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes the import of certain proteins into these two organelles via the Toc or the Tom complexes. ③ Higher photosystem I/II ratio and higher LEF generate more NADPH and ATP at a ratio of 0.78, which are consumed at a ratio of 0.67 by the enhanced CBB enzymes in the overexpressing (OE) chloroplasts for CO2 fixation. The surplus reducing equivalents are exported from the chloroplasts via the malate/oxaloacetate shuttle to recycle NADP+ as the electron acceptors of the LEF. ④ Higher reductant-dissipating activities of OE mitochondria reduce the needs for mitochondria to export reductants from photorespiration in the form of malate. ⑤ OE chloroplasts with enhanced rate of carbon fixation export more carbon skeletons to the cytosol. ⑥ OE mitochondria with higher reductant-dissipating activities generate more ATP through the respiratory electron transfer chain. ⑦ Higher ATP production in OE mitochondria and higher output of carbon skeletons from chloroplasts enhance sucrose synthesis in the cytosol. Red and blue lines indicate upregulated and downregulated pathways/metabolites in the OE lines, respectively.

Supplementary material: PDF

Voon et al. supplementary material

Voon et al. supplementary material 1

Download Voon et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.5 MB

Voon et al. supplementary material

Voon et al. supplementary material 2

Download Voon et al. supplementary material(Video)
Video 5.2 MB

Author comment: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor

We would like to submit a manuscript “Efficient cooperation of chloroplasts and mitochondria enhances ATP and sucrose production” to Quantitative Plant Biology as a research article. This manuscript is highly related to our recent publication "ATP compartmentation in plastids and cytosol of Arabidopsis thaliana revealed by fluorescent protein sensing" published in Oct 2018 and “In planta study of photosynthesis and photorespiration using NADPH and NADH/NAD+ fluorescent

protein sensors” in June 2020.

The first article illustrates how mature Arabidopsis chloroplasts maintain energy efficiency in the dark–by limiting ATP import from cytosol to mature chloroplast. It has been suggested that the shortfall of ATP in the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle could be compensated by the cyclic electron flow (CEF) or the importation of ATP from the cytosol. We reported in the first article that, unlike unicellular diatoms, mature Arabidopsis chloroplasts are unable to import ATP from the cytosol to supplement the ATP demand for CO2 fixation. Rather, the export of reducing equivalents is the key to maintain the optimal ATP/NADPH ratio required for photosynthesis. In the second article, we showed that photorespiration generates a large amount of NADH in mitochondria, and the surplus reducing equivalents is exported to the cytosol. Hence, surplus reducing equivalents are generated from both organelles during photosynthesis.

In the current manuscript, we showed that efficient carbon fixation in the AtPAP2 overexpression line is not dependent on an enhanced CEF to fulfil the shortage of ATP, but is dependent on an enhanced LEF and an efficient export of surplus reducing equivalents from the chloroplasts. Simultaneously, mitochondria play an important role in dissipating the surplus reducing equivalents from the chloroplasts, thereby regenerating NADP+ as electron acceptors for the LEF. By coordinating the activities of both chloroplasts and mitochondria, the AtPAP2-overexpressing lines can fix more carbon and produce more ATP and sucrose in their leaves. The OE plants thus grow faster and produce 50% more seeds (Supplemental Video S1). The current manuscript gives a real example to illustrate how the cooperation of chloroplasts and mitochondria can balance the demand and supply of ATP/NADPH during photosynthesis and optimize ATP and carbon fixation.

The content and authorship of this paper have been approved by all authors.

Yours sincerely

Boon Leong Lim

D.Phil (Oxon)

Associate Professor

School of Biological Sciences

University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Review: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I declare none of conflicts of interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: In this manuscript, the authors examine underlying mechanisms of enhanced growth in PAP2-overexpressed Arabidopsis lines. They conducted physiological and biochemical experiments. They showed that the overexpression of PAP2 on the outer membranes of chloroplasts and mitochondria supports the oxidation of excess NADPH and balance the ATP/NADPH ratio, leading to enhance sucrose production and growth. Most of data were interesting, but the following flaws should be improved.

Major concerns

1) In L. 179, 209-210, the authors mentioned that the increased amount of RbsL leads to higher rate of CO2 assimilation in OE lines. If so, they should conduct A-Ci curve measurements using LI-6400XT, and compare Vcmax and Jmax values between WT and OE lines.

2) In L. 180-184 and Supplemental Tables S2 and S3, the authors showed the protein abundances of ATP synthase subunits in chloroplasts and mitochondria were lower in OE7 lines than WT. These results are contradictory to the description in L. 9-13.

3) Since in Fig. 3A, they measured CO2 assimilation rate of whole shoots, they can compare the respiratory CO2 efflux rate of whole shoots among lines.

4) In L. 165-166, 175-176 and Supplemental Table S2, the amounts of subunits of PSII and b6f complex are reduced in the OE7 lines, and these data are also contradictory to the description in L. 9-10, 189-191. How can the authors explain this contradiction? The increased amount of only PSI should relate to enhancement of CEF-PSI. Using their Dual-PAM data (L. 96-101), they can calculate and should show the data of electron flow rate of PSI and CEF-PSI.

5) In Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, and Supplementary Figure S2 the authors measured photosynthesis of rosette leaves of whole shoots, but in Fig. 2B and Supplementary Figure S3 they measured photosynthesis of one leaf. Whole shoots include both immature young and senesced old leaves. These data should be carefully interpreted. What age of leaf is used for the measurements of Fig. 2B and Supplementary Figure S3?

6) In Table 2, if they would like to show the enhancement of respiratory ATP production in OE lines, they should show maximal COX and AOX activities using isolated mitochondria.

7) In Supplementary Table S1, the ratios of chlorophyll a to b are too low. Some chlorophyll a may be degraded to chlorophyll b. Also, these pigment contents should be expressed as leaf area basis because ETR and CO2 assimilation data are expressed as leaf area basis.

Minor concerns

1) In L. 88-89, the intensity of saturation pulse is low to reduce all QA. Did they check whether the intensity of saturation pulse is really saturated?

2) In L. 103-114, how did they measure rosette area of shoots?

3) In L. 125-132, did they isolate chloroplasts from rosette of whole shoots? And the isolation method should be described.

4) In L. 141-149 and Table 1, did they use whole leaf extracts or isolated organelle? Also they should the enzyme activities on the leaf area basis to compare the data of ETR and CO2 assimilation rate.

Review: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: General comments

This manuscript by Voon et al describes the effects of overexpression of AtPAP2 on the chloroplasts and mitochondria, which finally lead the increase in the photosynthetic production. To the best of my knowledge, although there are lots of papers in which the authors are struggling against the improvement in photosynthetic production, most of them did not succeed to make it. So, the clear increase in photosynthetic production described in this paper should be published in the near future. To make this manuscript more solid, I’d like to ask the authors to reconsider about several points below.

Specific comments

1. Reconsideration about “Efficient cooperation of chloroplasts and mitochondria” is necessary

Probably, it is generally accepted nowadays that there is coordination between chloroplasts and mitochondria. So, if either chloroplasts or mitochondria are solely modified and then the other is affected, the authors could say the results is due to the cooperation. But, in the present study, the over-expressed AtPAP2 is localized to both chloroplasts and mitochondria. Thus, the authors should consider the possibility that the effects of the overexpression on two organella could be independent, not results of cooperation between the two.

There is only one data that shows a modification on the cooperation between chloroplast and mitochondria in OE7 (Figure 4B) in which light-dependent alkalization was modified in the mutant plant. But I can’t find any other data or direct evidences in which such a modification in the response of mitochondria lead the enhancement of photosynthesis shown in Figure 3.

Between the three inhibitors in Figure 4C, rotenone and oligomycin can also affect photosynthesis. Therefore, the increased level of ATP could be explained only by the modification on chloroplast.

Therefore, the title “Efficient cooperation of chloroplasts and mitochondria”, the sentence “The results presented here provide an example on how chloroplast function is highly dependent on the mitochondria. (Line 283-284, page 11)” and relating discussion should be reconsidered.

Or, do I overlook or misunderstand important data which shows transport of metabolites between chloroplasts and mitochondria?

2. There is discrepancy between the parameters of photosynthetic light reaction and the CO2 assimilation

The level of oxidation of P700 is higher in OE lines at 50-125 uE, but CO2 assimilation is the same to WT under this light intensity (Figure 3). The authors explained that, in OE lines, there is an enhancement of electron transfer from PSI to NADP+, but the resultant NADPH should be utilized for CO2 assimilation. Therefore, CO2 assimilation also could be increased at the low light (50-125 uE), but not in the present study. Why does it happen?

Similar discrepancy is also observed at high light. The CO2 assimilation in OE lines is higher at >1000 uE, but the oxidation of P700 is the same to WT under the high light conditions. Probably, “the same level of P700 oxidation” results in “the same level of NADPH production” between WT and OE lines if there are no differences in CEF. Not only the oxidation of P700, but other LTE parameters (qP, YII) in OE lines are also almost the same to WT in the high light. So, what does enhance the CO2 assimilation in OE lines under the high light?

I also found a strange explanation. In Figure 4A, the level of ATP in OE7 under the light is lower than WT. The authors explained as “due to a higher ATP consumption rate in the OE7 chloroplasts because the CO2 fixation rate (line 244-245)”. But, the light intensity is 296 uE (on the figure legend of Figure 4C), which caused no difference in CO2 assimilation between WT and OE7 (Figure 3C)…

Could you explain about why the light intensity which can enhances CO2 assimilation and that for light reaction-related parameters are distinct from each other?

3. Is the CEF activity in OE lines really the same to WT?

I’m not so familiar with the evaluation of CEF activity by looking at the small rise appeared immediately after turning off the actinic light, but in my eyes, there are some differences between WT and two OE lines (Supplemental Figure S3). In OE7, the initial rate of the rise looks faster than WT. On the other hand, its height in OE21 appears lower than WT. I’d like to ask the authors to explain precisely why they concluded the CEF activity in OE lines is the same to WT.

4. Please show the original kinetics of fluorescence from which the authors calculated the photosynthetic parameters

The authors show photosynthetic parameters on Figure 3 (NPQ, qP, ETR, YII) which are based on measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence. Please show the typical fluorescence kinetics for each line from which these parameters were calculated, because original kinetics sometimes contain very important information or something new even though it is not appeared on the calculated parameters. Even if the authors are currently not aware of them, the readers might find something important after publication in the future. So, I strongly recommend the authors to do it.

Minor points

- The discussion part should be divided into several sections, like as the Results. The current version is bit hard to read and understand.

Recommendation: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R0/PR4

Comments

Comments to Author: Based on the comments of the reviewers and on my own evaluation, as a minimum requirement, I would like to invite the authors to address the remaining discrepancies (noted by both reviewers), which may only involve text changes.

Decision: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Editor

Thank you for your email dated 3 Dec 2020, informing us that a revision is allowed.

We thank the editor and the two referees for the encouraging and constructive comments on our manuscript. We carried out additional experiments and reported the new data in Supplementary Figure S5. We also provided a new Supplementary Figure S2 to present the kinetics data.

The manuscript has been carefully revised to address all points raised by the two reviewers and a point-by-point response to all comments is provided. We believe that the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved and hope that the reviewers and editors will now find it acceptable for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology. All authors read the manuscript and approved both content and authorship.

Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Boon Leong

Corresponding author

Review: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR7

Comments

Comments to Author: In the revised version, the authors improved several concerned points, but major following flaws were not improved. I cannot recommend this manuscript can be acceptable for this journal.

1) Why did not the authors conduct A-Ci curve? They already used LI-6400-XT for photosynthesis measurements.

2) They should show the data of electron flow rates of both PSI and CEF-PSI using Dual-PAM.

3) Why did not they check whether the intensity of saturation pulse of IMAGING-PAM is really saturated?

4) I cannot agree with their thought that A lower abundance of ATP synthase subunits does not contradict with a higher ATP content in OE7 lines compared with WT. Also, I cannot agree with their thought that a lower abundance of PSII and b6f subunits does not necessarily contradict with a higher ETR.

Review: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR8

Comments

Comments to Author: This manuscript by Voon et al is the revised one describing the effects of overexpression of AtPAP2 on the chloroplasts and mitochondria. The authors made modification according to the reviewers’ comments, but I think that is not enough. This manuscript needs further edition.

1. The title MUST be changed. Although there are many data showing the effects of the overexpression of AtPAP2, it is possible that the alteration in the chloroplasts and that in the mitochondria could be independent, as I mentioned before. The authors seem to have got results from the transgenic plants in which AtPAP2 is overexpressed solely either chloroplast of mitochondria and their phenotype was different from the transgenic lines of present study (Lines 383-386). Based on this, the authors say the present results are due to the cooperation between the two kinds of organella. I could understand what they say, but considered objectively, this is a speculation. Do the authors have any data showing enhancement in transport or exchange of chemicals/ reductants/ proteins between the two organella in the transgenic plants? What is the “cooperation” the authors are thinking? Moreover, the authors’ reasoning for the “efficient cooperation of chloroplast and mitochondria” includes unpublished data, according to the response. I have to say again that there is NOT enough evidences showing efficient cooperation of chloroplast and mitochondria in the present work. Of course, the authors can discuss about these points, but I hate such a title leading a misunderstanding for readers.

Instead of the current title, I will suggest “Overexpression of AtPAP2 in both chloroplasts and mitochondria enhanced photosynthesis production in Arabidopsis”, or something like that, and strongly recommend putting Supplemental figure S1 as Figure 1. In any cases, the authors must change the title to the one showing more immediate and direct conclusion obtained from their present work, which should not include speculation based on unpublished results to avoid readers’ misunderstanding.

2. About the Supplemental figure S2. I would like to thank the authors for their trying to follow my advices, but these are not “fluorescence kinetics”. Fluorescence kinetics is a graph showing changes in fluorescence yield with the lapse of time. It should look like the first graph on the left of panel A in Supplemental figure S4. I’d like to ask the authors to show graphs of the fluorescence kinetics for each light intensity. All the graphs should include baseline before and after turning on the measuring light to show the level of Fo and Fo’ clearly.

Review: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR9

Comments

Comments to Author: The manuscript entitled "Efficient cooperation of chloroplasts and mitochondria enhances ATP and sucrose production" described in detail characterization of already established and characterize Arabidopsis plant lines overexpressing the AtPAP2 gene and T-DNA insertion lines. Here using various physiological measurements and 2D-based proteomics, the authors suggest that the observed boost in OE lines' plant growth is governed by the combination of higher photosynthetic efficiency and consumption of reducing equivalents in the mitochondria. All the experiments are well-conducted and portrayed, and essential controls are included.

Overall, the presented work represents an important contribution to the scientific community, especially to those engaging in developing approaches for improving plant performance.

I have only minor comments:

1. The lower level of ATP synthase in OE line contradict the author's claim regarding enhance photosynthesis activity in those lines- can this be explained?

2. Line 192-197. The authors discuss the P700 oxidation results as a proxy for increased NAPD+ reduction rates. However, highly oxidized P700 refers to the quenching state of PSI and not necessarily to the rate of electron transfer.

3. Why most of the data is presented as sup files??

4. Line 241-243, the authors discuss the observed light-induced alkalization as a proxy for proton translocation activity across the mitochondria inner membrane. However, a recent paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.31.363051v1) showed light-induced pH alteration also in the cytosol, which can also affect the pH in the mitochondria. Accordingly, the presented data not directly point to more robust proton translocation activity.

5. Line 285 As PAP2 expressed in both organelles, I would say that the data point for the cooperation of the chloroplast and mitochondria activities in boosting metabolism and not for the dependency of chloroplast function on mitochondrial metabolism.

6. Line 295 "OE mitochondria"?

7. It is not clear whether or not the protein expression analysis supports the author's hypothesis. A dedicated analysis that will examine the expression level of the 40 proteins shown to interact with PAP2 is essential. If the authors model is correct, a significant increase in the abundance of these proteins (compared to the all protein population) should be observed

Recommendation: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR10

Comments

Comments to Author: Based on the comments of the reviewers and on my own evaluation, I would like to invite the authors, again, to carefully address the comments raised (noted by all reviewers), which might be addressed by appropriate text modifications.

Decision: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R1/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R2/PR12

Comments

Dear Editor

We thank the three referees for their constructive comments on our submitted manuscript. Here we submitted a revision according to their comments. We followed the suggestion of reviewer 2 and changed the title of the manuscript to "Overexpression of AtPAP2 in both chloroplasts and mitochondria of Arabidopsis enhances plant growth".

We provide a point-by-point response to all comments. We believe that our work has been strengthened by the revisions and hope that both reviewers and editor will now find it acceptable for publication in QPB. All authors read the manuscript and approved both content and authorship. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Boon Leong LIM

Recommendation: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R2/PR13

Comments

Comments to Author: In this version (QPB-20-0027.R2), the authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments raised by the reviewers. I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to answer all referees concerns which has substantially improved the quality of their work. Now, the manuscript in its current form is acceptable for publication in QPB.

Decision: Modulating the activities of chloroplasts and mitochondria promotes adenosine triphosphate production and plant growth — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.