Peer review of: Natural variation at FLM splicing has pleiotropic effects modulating ecological strategies in (2020)


 
 
 

Reviewers' comments: 

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): 

I am examining the manuscript of Hanemian et al. for the second time. The manuscript has been 
greatly improved but I am still yet satisfied. 

My main problem is that the findings presented in Fig 4 remain unclear. Does Fig. 4A show that flm 
has no effect on Amass (pvalue code is not indicated in the legend…)? What does Fig.4B show? That 
the covariance between LMA and Amass is not changed by FLM or that FLM has an effect on both LMA 
and Amass ? The term “trigger” is confusing, I don’t think that it is the genotype that are the cause of 
the covariance between LMA and Amass, but rather physiological constraints, and these are also 
perceived in flm-3 and FLM-Can. In the text, the authors explain that the covariance between LMA and 
Amass is the same as in a worldwide sample of A. thaliana. If the slope does not change, and the 
effect is only significant on LMA, why do the authors conclude that FLM has a substantial effect on 
plant physiology? It appears to me that the effect of FLM is hardly detectable… 
What is the data/analysis presented on line 225-227 and why do the authors compare its effect to the 
variance measured across 2206 species? Since environmental plasticity affects the measurements, 
what is the information that the authors draw from the comparison of their sample (grown in common 
garden set up) with the worldwide samples and species (see also line 309-310)? Based on their 
response to my question (rebuttal letter), it seems that this comparison should not be made. 

Also, the authors do not seem to be very clear about the nature of the pleiotropic effect of FLM. 
Should the means of LMA and Amass change depending on FLM alleles or should it be the slope, in 
order for the authors to conclude that leaf physiology is changed by FLM? How to interpret the 
observation that an effect is detected in the HIF but not in the flm-3/Col-0 comparison? 

I recognize that I am not an expert in the LES syndrome, and much of the readership of this paper will 
also not be. In my view (which I understand is also the author’s view), the findings presented in Fig. 4 
are central to the significance of the work. This figure and the corresponding paragraph must 
therefore be improved. 

Note finally that the manuscript still does not really sort out the role of temperature. FLM function is 
temperature dependent (stronger effect at lower temperature) and involved in adaptation to 
temperature (not to temperature mean but to temperature variance). In addition, it impacts leaf 
temperature (the methods omits to explain how leaf temperature was measured). It is important to 
clarify all these aspects in the discussion. Are they functionally connected? Should one not expect that 
FLM variation would be more adaptive at low temperature (since its effect is stronger)? Is it not a 
contradiction that it is found to associate with temperature variance instead of mean? Does this have 
to do with mean leaf temperature? 

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): 

The authors made slight revisions to introduction. 

[Editor: In the remark to Editor section, this reviewer specifically points out that the wordy 
Introduction problem was not addressed.] 

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): 

It appears to me most of my concerns have been appropriately addressed. The only minor suggestion 

I would add would be to change the title to "Natural variation at FLM-splicing..." or "Splicing variation 
at FLM..." rather than "Splicing natural variation.." a double adjective term. 

Hanemian et al. 

Nature Communications