Climate change affects many aspects of the physiological and biochemical processes of growing maize and ultimately its yield. A comprehensive climate suitability model is proposed that quantifies the effects of temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, and wind in different phenological stages of maize. It is calibrated using weather and yield data from China’s Henan Province. The comprehensive suitability model showed the capability of correctly hindcasting observed temporal and spatial changes in maize phenology in response to climatic factors. The predicted yield based on the suitability model can well match the recorded field yield very well from 1971–2020. The results of correlation showed that the yields are more closely related to multi-weather factors, temperature and precipitation than to solar radiation and wind. The sensitivity analysis illustrates that temperature and precipitation are the dominant weather factors affecting yield changes based on a direct differentiation method. The comprehensive suitability model can provide a scientific support and analysis tool for predicting grain production considering climate changes. Agriculture is an industry especially sensitive to climate change , 2. SincMany scholars have researched the assessment of the climate suitability of crops. The climatic suitability of crops is mainly based on the membership function method in fuzzy mathematics –15. ThroCrop yields are generally affected by a variety of climatic factors, especially by temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, and wind speed. A few researchers have proposed a development simulation model based on growing degree-days (GDD) and physiological development time (PDT). The model is mechanistic and takes into account thermal effects, insolation, and different varieties –27. ZhaoThis paper establishes a comprehensive climate suitability model to quantify the effect of temperature, water, solar radiation, and wind in a maize growth cycle based on the maize physiological growth model. The model is used to predict the effect of climatic factors on the yield of corn in Henan in the past 50 years. This model is combined with the direct differentiation method to analyze the climatic factor sensitivities on the yield of corn. The practical purpose of this research is to be able to provide a tool for accurately predicting corn yield in the face of climate change.According to the growth characteristics of maize in China’s Henan Province, its whole growth period can be divided: seedling stage , heading stage (June 16 to July 15), pollination stage (July 16 to August 15) and maturity stage (August 16 to September 15). A comprehensive suitability model is proposed in the growth period to study the effect of temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, and wind speed on the yield of maize. In actual crop growth, those four factors are not completely independent. There are certain correlations between temperature and precipitation, temperature and insolation, temperature and wind speed, and of course precipitation and solar radiation. Therefore, the independent suitability models need to be first established for the four factors.F(t)i is the temperature suitability index on the ith day in the maize growth period, ti is the daily average temperature recorded by the climate station. The variables tL, tH, t0 are the daily minimum, maximum and optimum temperature for the current growth stage of maize, i.e., the three basic point temperatures, which are determined by the temperature requirement of maize at different growth stages. This paper provides a three basic point temperature of four stages based on the comprehensive reference of several pieces of literature Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions  Comments to the Author1. 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: PartlyReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********  2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?   Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********  3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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.  The Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********  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: NoReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: 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. Reviewer #1: Recommendation: RejectThe survey reports an interesting topic that points out the effect of climate change on maize phenology and its sensitivity. The manuscript presents a certain gap in standard English. A large amount of reliable references lacks to statements making the manuscript with low basis on previous study (that are largely found). The manuscript didn’t show any effect of climate change on detailed phenological stages. It only showed the effect of climate change on yield and on all phenological stages. It is a huge gap that lead me to take my decision concerning the manuscript. Additionally, authors mentioned several times the term “weather” which is not the case of studying meteorological parameters over a 50 years-period (being climate rather than weather). Moreover, results weren’t approximately discussed nor compared to previous studies, which was also one of the major gaps of the manuscript. Authors mentioned that all the data were present in the manuscript and its supporting files; while it is not the case as the data on which they relied to present the predictions and all presented models isn’t available. I think that the manuscript doesn’t fully merit to be published in PLOS One; however, I ask authors to take into consideration the following comments which will help them to improve their manuscript.1. Page 1, line 12: Kindly adjust as follow: “ultimately its yield”.2. Page 1, lines 13–14: Kindly replace “in different growth periods of maize” by “in different phenological stages of maize”.3. Page 1, line 14: Kindly replace “historical weather” by “climate” as the climate is a state of weather at a very long time starting 30 years and more.4. Page 1, line 15: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The comprehensive suitability model showed capability of correctly…”5. Page 1, lines 15–18: “The comprehensive… data”: The sentence is quite long; accordingly, kindly reformulate it to be more concise.6. Page 1, lines 18–19: “The correlation… are analyzed”: Kindly mention the type of correlation and its strength in the abstract part. You cannot mention it as an analyzed factor while the objective is to mention what did you find in the abstract’s results mention.7. Page 1, lines 19–20: “The sensitivities… method”: Same recommendation as mentioned in the previous comment.8. Page 3, lines 37–42: “Many… quality”: This whole section lacks reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.9. Page 3, line 42: Kindly adjust as follow: “Gu et al. ”.10. Page 3, line 43: “for growing particular crops”: Kindly mention these crops.11. Page 3, line 43: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Gonzalez et al. [15] established a model…”12. Page 3, line 46: Kindly remove reference 16 as it has no relation with the mentioned statement.13. Page 3, line 46: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Lamptey [17] used…”14. Page 4, lines 48–49: Kindly adjust as follow: “Wang et al. [18]”.15. Page 4, line 51: Kindly remove “[18]”, adjust as follow: “Robin [19] and provide the corresponding reliable source “19” in the references list as the one present is different than mentioned in the text.16. Page 4, line 55: Kindly remove “but”.17. Page 4, lines 58–59: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The model is mechanistic and takes into account thermal effects, insolation, and different varieties [20–22].”18. Page 4, line 59: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Zhao et al. [23] used fuzzy…”19. Page 4, line 61: Kindly remove “[23]”.20. Page 4, line 62: Kindly adjust as follow: “Yao et al. [24]”.21. Page 4, line 65: Kindly remove “[24]”.22. Page 4, lines 65–66: Kindly adjust as follow: “systematic research on…”23. Page 4, line 66: Kindly remove “That was the object of this study.”24. Pages 4–5, lines 69–71: “The model… corn”: These statements are related to the Materials and methods section as they describe the approaches take on. Accordingly, kindly remove them.25. Page 5: Kindly add the title: “2. Materials and methods”.26. Page 5, line 74: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.1. A comprehensive climate suitability (CCS) model for maize”.27. Page 5, lines 75–76: “Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “its whole growth period can be divided…”28. Page 5, line 79: Kindly adjust “considers” and remove “should”.29. Page 5, lines 82–83: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Therefore, the independent suitability models need to be first established for the four factors.”30. Page 5, line 84: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.2. Temperature suitability model”.31. Page 6, line 103: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.3. Precipitation suitability model”.32. Page 6, lines 104–106: “Winter… accumulation”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.33. Page 7, line 108: Kindly adjust as follow: “Wei et al. [26] suggested…”34. Page 7, line 108: The sentence is incomplete; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.35. Page 7, lines 108–109: Kindly remove “In this paper” and adjust the sentence as follow: “the precipitation suitability was calculated using the following equation”.36. Page 7, lines 114–115: “That generates… Table 2”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.37. Page 7, line 121: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.4. Sunshine suitability model”.38. Pages 7–8, lines 122–126: “Maize… maize”: These statements lack reliable sources; accordingly, kindly provide them.39. Page 8, line 124: Kindly remove “every day”.40. Page 8, line 125: Kindly adjust as follow: “inadequate” and “slows down”.41. Page 8, lines 127–129: “In a certain… suitable”: These statement lack reliable sources; accordingly, kindly provide them.42. Page 8, lines 129–130: Kindly adjust as follow: “Li et al. [27] suggested…”43. Page 8, line 138: Kindly provide the source of Table 3 parameters details.44. Page 9, line 143: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.5. Wind suitability model”.45. Page 9, lines 144–148: “Wind… variety”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.46. Page 9, lines 148–149: Kindly adjust this sentence as follow: “In the current study, focus was made on flowering…”47. Page 9, lines 149–151: “During that… yield”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.48. Page 9, lines 154–155: “which are taken as 6.0m/s and 10m/s in this discussion”: Kindly remove “in this discussion” and mention the source you relied on to state these numbers as suitable to adopt.49. Page 9, line 157: “where nw is the number of days in the flowering period—15 days in this discussion”: Kindly remove “in this discussion” and mention the source you relied on to state this number as suitable to adopt.50. Page 9, line 158: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.6. A comprehensive reduced yield model”.51. Page 10, lines 159–163: “The ideal… correlation”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.52. Page 10, line 173: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.7. Sensitivities of comprehensive reduced yield model”.53. Page 10, lines 174–178: “The climatic… one unit”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.54. Page 10, line 178: Kindly replace “In this paper” by “In the current study”.55. Page 11, line 191: Kindly replace this title by “3. Results and discussion”.56. Page 11, lines 194–195: “It is assumed… factors”: This statement lacks a reliable source (reference); accordingly, kindly provide it.57. Page 11, line 199: Kindly adjust as follow: “YL”.58. Page 11, line 200: You’re discussing a climate change over 50 years, you cannot say “weather” !!59. Page 12, line 206: Kindly remove “firstly”.60. Page 12, line 207: “Based on the meteorological data of Henan Province from 1971 to 2020”: We are not able to observe the detailed data in these years; accordingly, kindly provide them in a supplementary file”.61. Page 12, line 209: Kindly adjust as follow: “The relationship between…”62. Page 12, line 214: Kindly replace “set in this paper” by “adopted in the current study”.63. Page 14, line 229: Kindly adjust as follow: “The relationship between…”64. Page 14, lines 230–232: “That is not… 15 days”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.65. Page 14, line 236: Kindly remove “So”.66. Page 14, line 239: Kindly replace “in this paper” by “in the current study”.67. Page 15, line 240: Kindly adjust as follow: “to simulate”.68. Page 15, line 243: Kindly adjust as follow: “in previous literature”.69. Page 16, line 264: Kindly adjust as follow: “The fluctuation of temperature and precipitation”.70. Page 16, lines 264–267: “The decrease… decrease them”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.71. Page 17, line 271: Kindly remove “In summary”.72. Page 17, lines 271–279: This whole section is a summary of the current’s study findings. Kindly remove it.Reviewer #2: "Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, China" is well written. It is about the climate change effects on maize under particular conditions of China.Reviewer #3: Dear authorIn a general review of your paper, I found that the computational and mathematical aspects of this paper are predominant, and such writing certainly demonstrates the authors' mastery of the concepts of simulation and the use of performance prediction models using real farm multi-year data.Therefore, considering the importance of predicting the change of yield of important crops such as corn in the face of climate change, I consider this article to be very important and practical. However, it is necessary to use specialized words that are generally accepted by experts in this field in expressing biological topics. I have suggested some tips in this regard.In addition, I found the method of referring to the research of others unconventional in the text of your article. However, to address this shortcoming, I have written some suggestions for you that I hope you will find useful.**********  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: NoReviewer #2: NoYes: Majid AghaAlikhani(Ph.D.)Reviewer #3: ProfessorWeed-Crop EcophysiologyMedicinal and Aromatic Plants AgrotechnologyDepartment of AgrotechnologyFaculty of AgricultureTarbiat Modares UniversityPO Box 14115-336Tehran, IranPhone:+98 21 48292099https://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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, AttachmentReviewer Recommendation and Comments.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 14 Dec 2021Journal: PLOS ONETitle: Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, ChinaManuscript ID: PONE-D-21-35009Dear Prof. Vassilis G. Aschonitis,Thank you very much for your letter that enclosed the reviewers’ comments for our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. We would like to submit the revised manuscript with all revisions marked in blue color. The following are our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Some essential contents have been added in the revised manuscript, however, these changes will not influence the conclusions. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you and all the reviewers for your consideration and instructive comments. Look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely,Ning ZhangDoctorFaculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada  Additional requirements1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found athttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf andhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdfResponse: Thanks for your reminder. The manuscript has been revised to meet PLOS ONE's style requirement.2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.Response: The Funding Information has been revised.3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.Response: The funding-related text has been removed from the manuscript. In the Funding Statement,“The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from China’s National Science Foundation through grants 51978591 and 51578473.”4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.Response:Data Availability StatementAll data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available. The functions of the model are explained in detail in the manuscript. The data of weather and yield are attached as supporting information. To Reviewer 1Reviewer #1: The survey reports an interesting topic that points out the effect of climate change on maize phenology and its sensitivity. The manuscript presents a certain gap in standard English. A large amount of reliable references lacks to statements making the manuscript with low basis on previous study (that are largely found). The manuscript didn’t show any effect of climate change on detailed phenological stages. It only showed the effect of climate change on yield and on all phenological stages. It is a huge gap that lead me to take my decision concerning the manuscript. Additionally, authors mentioned several times the term “weather” which is not the case of studying meteorological parameters over a 50 years-period (being climate rather than weather). Moreover, results weren’t approximately discussed nor compared to previous studies, which was also one of the major gaps of the manuscript. Authors mentioned that all the data were present in the manuscript and its supporting files; while it is not the case as the data on which they relied to present the predictions and all presented models isn’t available. I think that the manuscript doesn’t fully merit to be published in PLOS One; however, I ask authors to take into consideration the following comments which will help them to improve their manuscript.Response: We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve our manuscript. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration and instructive comments. The statement about “climate” is incorrect, and it has been replaced by “weather”. For Data Availability Statement, all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. We would like to submit the revised manuscript with all revisions marked in blue color. 1. Page 1, line 12: Kindly adjust as follow: “ultimately its yield”.Response: Thanks for your comment. It has been revised in the manuscript.2. Page 1, lines 13–14: Kindly replace “in different growth periods of maize” by “in different phenological stages of maize”.Response: It has been revised in the manuscript. Thanks.3. Page 1, line 14: Kindly replace “historical weather” by “climate” as the climate is a state of weather at a very long time starting 30 years and more.4. Page 1, line 15: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The comprehensive suitability model showed capability of correctly…”5. Page 1, lines 15–18: “The comprehensive… data”: The sentence is quite long; accordingly, kindly reformulate it to be more concise.Response: The author agrees with the revises of questions 3-5.6. Page 1, lines 18–19: “The correlation… are analyzed”: Kindly mention the type of correlation and its strength in the abstract part. You cannot mention it as an analyzed factor while the objective is to mention what did you find in the abstract’s results mention.Response: It has been replaced by “The results of correlation showed that the yields are more closely related to multi-weather factors, temperature and precipitation than to solar radiation and wind. “7. Page 1, lines 19–20: “The sensitivities… method”: Same recommendation as mentioned in the previous comment.Response: It has been replaced by “The sensitivity analysis illustrates that temperature and precipitation are the dominant weather factors affecting yield changes based on a direct differentiation method. ”8. Page 3, lines 37–42: “Many… quality”: This whole section lacks reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.Response: Five literature have been added for reference, see Ref.29-33.9. Page 3, line 42: Kindly adjust as follow: “Gu et al. ”.Response: It has been revised in the manuscript.10. Page 3, line 43: “for growing particular crops”: Kindly mention these crops.Response: It has been revised in the manuscript, such as maize and wheat.11. Page 3, line 43: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Gonzalez et al. [15] established a model…”Response: They have been revised in the manuscript, including Questions 12-72.12. Page 3, line 46: Kindly remove reference 16 as it has no relation with the mentioned statement.13. Page 3, line 46: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Lamptey [17] used…”14. Page 4, lines 48–49: Kindly adjust as follow: “Wang et al. [18]”.15. Page 4, line 51: Kindly remove “[18]”, adjust as follow: “Robin [19] and provide the corresponding reliable source “19” in the references list as the one present is different than mentioned in the text.16. Page 4, line 55: Kindly remove “but”.17. Page 4, lines 58–59: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The model is mechanistic and takes into account thermal effects, insolation, and different varieties [20–22].”18. Page 4, line 59: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Zhao et al. [23] used fuzzy…”19. Page 4, line 61: Kindly remove “[23]”.20. Page 4, line 62: Kindly adjust as follow: “Yao et al. [24]”.21. Page 4, line 65: Kindly remove “[24]”.22. Page 4, lines 65–66: Kindly adjust as follow: “systematic research on…”23. Page 4, line 66: Kindly remove “That was the object of this study.”24. Pages 4–5, lines 69–71: “The model… corn”: These statements are related to the Materials and methods section as they describe the approaches take on. Accordingly, kindly remove them.25. Page 5: Kindly add the title: “2. Materials and methods”.26. Page 5, line 74: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.1. A comprehensive climate suitability (CCS) model for maize”.27. Page 5, lines 75–76: “Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “its whole growth period can be divided…”28. Page 5, line 79: Kindly adjust “considers” and remove “should”.29. Page 5, lines 82–83: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “Therefore, the independent suitability models need to be first established for the four factors.”30. Page 5, line 84: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.2. Temperature suitability model”.31. Page 6, line 103: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.3. Precipitation suitability model”.32. Page 6, lines 104–106: “Winter… accumulation”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.33. Page 7, line 108: Kindly adjust as follow: “Wei et al. [26] suggested…”34. Page 7, line 108: The sentence is incomplete; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.35. Page 7, lines 108–109: Kindly remove “In this paper” and adjust the sentence as follow: “the precipitation suitability was calculated using the following equation”.36. Page 7, lines 114–115: “That generates… Table 2”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.37. Page 7, line 121: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.4. Sunshine suitability model”.38. Pages 7–8, lines 122–126: “Maize… maize”: These statements lack reliable sources; accordingly, kindly provide them.39. Page 8, line 124: Kindly remove “every day”.40. Page 8, line 125: Kindly adjust as follow: “inadequate” and “slows down”.41. Page 8, lines 127–129: “In a certain… suitable”: These statement lack reliable sources; accordingly, kindly provide them.42. Page 8, lines 129–130: Kindly adjust as follow: “Li et al. [27] suggested…”43. Page 8, line 138: Kindly provide the source of Table 3 parameters details.44. Page 9, line 143: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.5. Wind suitability model”.45. Page 9, lines 144–148: “Wind… variety”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.46. Page 9, lines 148–149: Kindly adjust this sentence as follow: “In the current study, focus was made on flowering…”47. Page 9, lines 149–151: “During that… yield”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.48. Page 9, lines 154–155: “which are taken as 6.0m/s and 10m/s in this discussion”: Kindly remove “in this discussion” and mention the source you relied on to state these numbers as suitable to adopt.49. Page 9, line 157: “where nw is the number of days in the flowering period—15 days in this discussion”: Kindly remove “in this discussion” and mention the source you relied on to state this number as suitable to adopt.50. Page 9, line 158: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.6. A comprehensive reduced yield model”.51. Page 10, lines 159–163: “The ideal… correlation”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.52. Page 10, line 173: Kindly adjust the title numbering as: “2.7. Sensitivities of comprehensive reduced yield model”.53. Page 10, lines 174–178: “The climatic… one unit”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.54. Page 10, line 178: Kindly replace “In this paper” by “In the current study”.55. Page 11, line 191: Kindly replace this title by “3. Results and discussion”.56. Page 11, lines 194–195: “It is assumed… factors”: This statement lacks a reliable source (reference); accordingly, kindly provide it.57. Page 11, line 199: Kindly adjust as follow: “YL”.58. Page 11, line 200: You’re discussing a climate change over 50 years, you cannot say “weather” !!59. Page 12, line 206: Kindly remove “firstly”.60. Page 12, line 207: “Based on the meteorological data of Henan Province from 1971 to 2020”: We are not able to observe the detailed data in these years; accordingly, kindly provide them in a supplementary file”.61. Page 12, line 209: Kindly adjust as follow: “The relationship between…”62. Page 12, line 214: Kindly replace “set in this paper” by “adopted in the current study”.63. Page 14, line 229: Kindly adjust as follow: “The relationship between…”64. Page 14, lines 230–232: “That is not… 15 days”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.65. Page 14, line 236: Kindly remove “So”.66. Page 14, line 239: Kindly replace “in this paper” by “in the current study”.67. Page 15, line 240: Kindly adjust as follow: “to simulate”.68. Page 15, line 243: Kindly adjust as follow: “in previous literature”.69. Page 16, line 264: Kindly adjust as follow: “The fluctuation of temperature and precipitation”.70. Page 16, lines 264–267: “The decrease… decrease them”: These statements lack reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.71. Page 17, line 271: Kindly remove “In summary”.72. Page 17, lines 271–279: This whole section is a summary of the current’s study findings. Kindly remove it.Response: We would like to express our grateful thanks to the reviewer for the above suggestions. We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve our manuscript.  To Reviewer 2Reviewer #2: "Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, China" is well written. It is about the climate change effects on maize under particular conditions of China.Response: We would like to express our grateful thanks to the reviewer for his/her valuable comments. All the doubts and remarks have been answered carefully. The numbers for sections, figures, tables, and pages refer to the revised version of the manuscript unless otherwise noted. The modifications are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript. To Reviewer 3Reviewer #3: Dear authorIn a general review of your paper, I found that the computational and mathematical aspects of this paper are predominant, and such writing certainly demonstrates the authors' mastery of the concepts of simulation and the use of performance prediction models using real farm multi-year data.Therefore, considering the importance of predicting the change of yield of important crops such as corn in the face of climate change, I consider this article to be very important and practical. However, it is necessary to use specialized words that are generally accepted by experts in this field in expressing biological topics. I have suggested some tips in this regard.In addition, I found the method of referring to the research of others unconventional in the text of your article. However, to address this shortcoming, I have written some suggestions for you that I hope you will find useful.Response: We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve our manuscript. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration and instructive comments. We would like to submit the revised manuscript with all revisions marked in blue color. ABSTARCT- The final sentence of the abstract section should inform the final and practical result of the research. Please rewrite this section.Response: Thanks for your comment. The final and practical result of the research has been added in the revised abstract.- Line 13: Replace "sunshine": with the "solar radiation". The later one is more professional word to talk about crop yield and its climatic requirements.Response: It has been replaced.- Line 18: Correct predicated…. to ……. Predicted.Response: The typos have been revised.KEYWORDS- As article keywords: It is recommended to use words that are not used in the title. Response: The KEYWORDS has been revised. Thanks for your comment.INTRODUCTION- Lines 35: Replace appropriate seeds to "appropriate genotypes". - Line 39: Replace indexes with " indices"- Line 40, 56, 61, 64, 79: Replace "sunshine": with the "solar radiation". Response: The above three inappropriate words have been revised.- Line 42: Change, Gu and his colleagues… to " Gu et al. It seems the journal guidelines have preferred the number-based citation format, and you are accustomed to reviewing sources, start with citations to the authors' names. It is recommended that you use passive verbs to avoid this inconsistency. For example, instead of "Gu and his colleagues used the climate model," say " the climate model was used . And at the end of the sentence, bring the relevant reference number.- Line 43: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Gonzales…. - Line 46: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Lamptey….    yield- Line 47: Correct Yields ---------�- Line 48: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Wang's group…..- Line 54: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Robin ……- Line 56: Replace " some scholars with " a few researcher"- Line 56-61: no conventional citation: Agroup led by Zhao …. . Same correction as Line 42 is needed for that.- Line 62: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Yao ……  Response: The method of referring has been revised.- Line 68: Delete the repeated word "effect". So rewrite the sentence having the shared word "effect" for all parameters. Response: It has been replaced by “This paper establishes a comprehensive weather suitability model to quantify the effect of temperature, water, solar radiation, and wind in a maize growth cycle based on the maize physiological growth model.”- Line 72: Instead of pointing directly to the application of this article, which is an unproven claim, say: The practical purpose of this research is to be able to provide a tool for accurately predicting corn yield in the face of climate change.Response: Thanks for your comments. The application of this article has been revised.- Line 73: is there difference between maize yield (line 72) and yield of summer maize (line 73)??Response: There is no difference between maize and summer maize. The “summer maize” has been replaced by “maize” in this manuscript.- Line 74: you applied several models to simulate the weather and meteorological parameters effects on maize yield during a 50 years duration. So these part and their subtitles should be named as Methids and Materials.Response: It has been named in the revised manuscript.- Line 76: Replace the summer maize with "the crop".Response: It has been replaced. - Line 79, 82, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140, 162, 163 and 165: Replace "sunshine": with the "solar radiation".Response: It has been replaced. - Line 109: same correction as Line 42 is needed for Wei and his colleagues ……Response: It has been revised. - Line 122: Rewrite this simple but important sentence using a better and an academic expression. You severely recommended to emphasizing into the carboxylation pathway of the maize (C4) which indicating its high demand of solar radiation. Response: Thanks for your comments and advice. They have been revised in Line 137 of the manuscript. - Line 124-125: this concept has been repeated in above line. So delete this sentence: Maize need a large amount of sunshine.Response: It has been deleted. - Line 145: correct the unit format to : m. s-1Response: It has been revised.    cultivar- Line 148: Replace variety ----------�- Line 150: Do you mean the wind speed? You mentioned to the wind force!! They are different. If your answer is YES, write the unit for wind speed: m.s-1Response: YES. I am sorry for that. The wind force has been replaced by wind speed. - Line 154: correct the unit format to : m. s-1Response: The following questions have been revised.- Line 160: Change elements with: parameters". - Line 168: Replace indexes with " indices"- Line 171: Replace indexes with " indices"- Line 178: Change the paper with the " article"- Line 191: Write the main title for this part of the article : "Results and Discussion"- Line 200 : Correct radio -------- > ratio- Figurr 1: correct the unit typesetting as : kg. ha-1- Line 206: Replace indexes with " indices"- Line 223, 224, 228, 236, 259, 266: 282 and 289 : Replace "sunshine": with the "solar radiation".- Figure 7 and figure 8: Replace "sunshine": with the "solar radiation".- Line 271: Replace the paper with the "article" Response: We would like to thank you again for the above suggestions. We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. These suggestions are very helpful for me to improve my manuscript.AttachmentResponse to Reviewers.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 19 Dec 2021
 PONE-D-21-35009R1

 Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to weather change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, China

 PLOS ONEDear Dr. Zhang,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.plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at
 A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
 If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Vassilis G. AschonitisAcademic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.[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 addressedReviewer #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: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********  3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?   Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********  4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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.  The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #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: YesReviewer #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. Reviewer #1: Recommendation: AcceptAfter careful and deep observation of all the authors corrections, for which I am deeply grateful for taking all my comments and recommendations into consideration, I find that the manuscript has now a merit to be published in “PLOS One” in its current form. Authors provided all the reliable sources that were lacking in literature (Introduction), Materials and methods and Discussion parts, adjusted all the sentences that were unclear or badly written in standard English and provided all the supporting data that they were asked for as additional files. I am deeply grateful for this big improvement in the manuscript, that made me completely change my mind in its concern.Reviewer #3: I reviewed the authors' responses to my points and comments, as well as their responses to the suggestions of two other respected referees. I hereby confirm that the authors have taken note of all comments made by the reviewers and have made any necessary changes to the text of the revised version of the article. However, I consider it necessary to pay attention to the following two points and make the relevant correction.- 1- The author did not understand the meaning of reviewer No. 1, who basically rejected the article, and changed the correct phrase "Climate Change" to the incorrect phrase "weather" in manuscript title, abstract and a few sentences of the body. Do not forget the weather gives temperature, radiation, humidity, etc. in a short period of time, such as 24 a day and 7 day a week. Meanwhile whenever we talk about the status of these parameters in the long run, the term climate should be used. Since this article also uses atmospheric structural data for a period of 50 years, it is appropriate to use the term "climate change" like the original version of the article.- 2- Although in the text of the article, the typographical error about the word "ratio" that was written as "radio" have been, the authors forgot to correct this point in the relevant figures as well. In this regard, in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 in its vertical axis, the word "radio" should be modified to the word "ratio". There is also a grammatical error in the text of the legend inside the figures. In Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, which refer to reduced yield in terms of temperature, rainfall, solar radiation, and wind, respectively, in the legend, the word "reduces" must be corrected to "reduced".With best wishes and kind RegardsReviewer # 3**********  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: NoYes: Majid AghaAlikhani (Ph.D.)Reviewer #3: ProfessorWeed-Crop EcophysiologyMedicinal and Aromatic Plants AgrotechnologyDepartment of AgrotechnologyFaculty of AgricultureTarbiat Modares UniversityPO Box 14115-336Tehran, IranPhone:+98 21 48292099Facsimile: +98 21 48292200maghaalikhani@modares.ac.irMail to: majid.aghaalikhani@gmail.comAlternate e-mail: 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
 While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  19 Dec 2021Journal: PLOS ONETitle: Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, ChinaManuscript ID: PONE-D-21-35009Dear Prof. Vassilis G. Aschonitis,Thank you very much for your letter that enclosed the reviewers’ comments for our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. We would like to submit the revised manuscript with all revisions marked in blue color. The following are our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Some essential contents have been added in the revised manuscript, however, these changes will not influence the conclusions. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you and all the reviewers for your consideration and instructive comments. Look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely,Ning ZhangDoctorFaculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada  To Reviewer 1Reviewer #1: After careful and deep observation of all the authors corrections, for which I am deeply grateful for taking all my comments and recommendations into consideration, I find that the manuscript has now a merit to be published in “PLOS One” in its current form. Authors provided all the reliable sources that were lacking in literature (Introduction), Materials and methods and Discussion parts, adjusted all the sentences that were unclear or badly written in standard English and provided all the supporting data that they were asked for as additional files. I am deeply grateful for this big improvement in the manuscript, that made me completely change my mind in its concern.Response: We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. We are very excited that you have changed your mind. All of your comments are very helpful to improve our manuscript. Thank you again.Best wishes To Reviewer 3Reviewer #3: I reviewed the authors' responses to my points and comments, as well as their responses to the suggestions of two other respected referees. I hereby confirm that the authors have taken note of all comments made by the reviewers and have made any necessary changes to the text of the revised version of the article. However, I consider it necessary to pay attention to the following two points and make the relevant correction.Response: We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript. These suggestions are very helpful for us to improve our manuscript. We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration and instructive comments.- 1- The author did not understand the meaning of reviewer No. 1, who basically rejected the article, and changed the correct phrase "Climate Change" to the incorrect phrase "weather" in manuscript title, abstract and a few sentences of the body. Do not forget the weather gives temperature, radiation, humidity, etc. in a short period of time, such as 24 a day and 7 day a week. Meanwhile whenever we talk about the status of these parameters in the long run, the term climate should be used. Since this article also uses atmospheric structural data for a period of 50 years, it is appropriate to use the term "climate change" like the original version of the article.Response: We agree with your comments on "Climate Change". As you said, we focus on the atmospheric structural data for a period of 50 years. We believe that "Climate Change" is more appropriate. The “weather” has been replaced by "Climate Change" in the revised manuscript.Thanks very much for your comments.- 2- Although in the text of the article, the typographical error about the word "ratio" that was written as "radio" have been, the authors forgot to correct this point in the relevant figures as well. In this regard, in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 in its vertical axis, the word "radio" should be modified to the word "ratio". There is also a grammatical error in the text of the legend inside the figures. In Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, which refer to reduced yield in terms of temperature, rainfall, solar radiation, and wind, respectively, in the legend, the word "reduces" must be corrected to "reduced".Response: Thanks for your comment. " radio" is a typographical error. We are very sorry that we missed this error when we revised the manuscript for the first time. They have been revised in the updated manuscript. In addition, "reduces" has been corrected to "reduced"AttachmentResponse to Reviewers.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 21 Dec 2021Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, ChinaPONE-D-21-35009R2Dear Dr. Zhang,We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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 Kind regards,Vassilis G. AschonitisAcademic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments :Reviewers' comments: 12 Jan 2022PONE-D-21-35009R2 Responses and sensitivities of maize phenology to climate change from 1971 to 2020 in Henan Province, China Dear Dr. Zhang:I'm 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. onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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 plosone@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic EditorPLOS ONE


In this study, we evaluated the average effect sizes of different environmental constraints on gm in Populus spp., a forest tree model. We collected raw data of 815 A–Ci response curves from 26 datasets to estimate gm, using a single curve-fitting method to alleviate method-related bias. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effects of different abiotic stresses on gm. We found a significant increase in gm from the bottom to the top of the canopy that was concomitant with the increase of maximum rate of carboxylation and light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Amax). gm was positively associated with increases in soil moisture and nutrient availability, but was insensitive to increasing soil copper concentration and did not vary with atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results showed that gm was strongly related to Amax and to a lesser extent to stomatal conductance (gs). Moreover, a negative exponential relationship was obtained between gm and specific leaf area, which may be used to scale-up gm within the canopy.Mesophyll conductance ( Populus spp. showed significant effects of light gradient, soil moisture, and nitrogen but no response to copper and growth [CO2].Meta-analysis of mesophyll conductance in response to environmental constraints in  The rate of CO2 diffusion is affected by two main diffusion limitations. The first limitation controls the CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the sub-stomatal cavities through the stomata and is characterized by stomatal conductance (gs). The second limitation determines the diffusion of CO2 from the substomatal cavities to the sites of carboxylation in the chloroplasts and is characterized by mesophyll conductance (gm). gm is composed of gaseous and liquid phase resistances   chlorophyll fluorescence coupled to gas exchange  accurately predict canopy photosynthesis under different environmental conditions, particularly under warmer and drier climate, and improve global carbon assimilation models, and (ii) effectively select more resilient and productive cultivars for wood and bioenergy. In poplar plantations, organic amendments like biosolids and pig slurry are used to increase growth rate at a low cost  and rate of electron transport (J). We further collected related variables like leaf nitrogen content, stomatal conductance, and specific leaf area (SLA) when data were available. Our main goal was to find trends in the response of mesophyll conductance to prevalent abiotic stressors and to examine the relationship between gm and other leaf traits. We believe that a meta-analytical approach to analyse the accumulated data on the diffusion of CO2 through the mesophyll diffusion pathway in relation to other photosynthesis-related traits provides key insights into the different controls on mesophyll conductance and into the environmental plasticity of mesophyll conductance. We aim to contribute to the efforts of improving poplar photosynthetic efficiency in poplar breeding programs, and to improve modelling of global carbon assimilation of biomass and bioenergy crops under climate change.Substantial data of  hybrids . Publishe method  to allevPopulus’ or ‘poplar’ or ‘hybrid poplar’ or ‘aspen’) and (‘Vcmax’ or ‘maximum rate of electron transport (Jmax)’ or ‘mesophyll conductance’). At this step, the abstract of every item was checked to confirm the paper is actually about gm. Then, we looked at the ‘Materials and methods’ section of selected papers where A–Ci response curves of Populus spp. were measured.Data were collected by a web search in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar using the following key words:  only curves with at least two points in the saturation region (J region) were retained; (ii) only fitted curves with P-value <0.05 using the method of gm values in Populus spp. using at least two methods simultaneously never exceeded 1 mol m−2 s−1 , and Vcmax and J values were retained for further analyses.The total data of 72 genotypes were collected from measurements on plants growing in plantations (five studies), or under controlled conditions  with optimal and stressful conditions . After cgm, we estimated that a minimum of three studies is necessary to have reliable conclusions, regardless of the genotype used, except copper for which only two studies were examined because they had been conducted under the same experimental conditions. Then, we could come up with subsets of data that focused on the same variable and performed analyses on them separately , gs, J, Vcmax, and in a second step, the relationships between gm and other photosynthetic characteristics . The data subsets included the following environmental factors:To examine the effect of a given abiotic factor on • Canopy level: four studies addressed the photosynthetic activity of leaves at the bottom, middle and top of trees .2: we examined the response of trees to elevated atmospheric CO2 from the studies of 2 was 550 ppm of CO2 for the studies of • Atmospheric CO• Copper (Cu) stress: datasets from the studies of vs. low soil N content treatments were reported in four studies: • Soil nitrogen (N) content: high vs. water deficit (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7sqv9s4s0); Benomar .• Soil moisture: water status of trees was assessed and data from four studies were classified into two treatments: control  For 2; when we focused on the effect of N, we selected trees exposed to ambient CO2 only (control).For studies with two or more investigated factors, we considered the different levels of the factor of interest and the control level of the rest of the factors to avoid between-factor interaction effects on the results. For example, in Vcmax and J, were estimated by fitting A–Ci curve with the non-rectangular hyperbola version (3 plants (gm species (<0.3 mol m−2 s−1) and its accuracy is similar to estimates using the chlorophyll fluorescence method and online carbon 13C isotope discrimination  is given as:Briefly, the net assimilation rate (withAc is the Rubisco-limited rate of CO2 assimilation (µmol m−2 s−1), Aj is the RuBP-limited rate of CO2 assimilation (µmol m−2 s−1), Vcmax is the maximum rate of carboxylation (µmol m−2 s−1), O is the partial atmospheric pressure of O2 (mmol mol−1),Γ* is the CO2 compensation point in the absence of mitochondrial respiration, Rday is mitochondrial respiration in the light (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1), Cc is the chloroplast CO2 (µmol mol−1), Ci is the intercellular air space concentration of CO2 (µmol mol−1), Kc (µmol mol−1) and Ko (mmol mol−1) are the Michaelis–Menten constants of Rubisco for CO2 and O2, respectively, and J is the rate of electron transport (µmol m−2 s−1). The values at 25 °C used for Kc, Ko, and Γ* were 272 µmol mol−1, 166 mmol mol−1 and 37.4 µmol mol−1, respectively . In this case, Ls), mesophyll conductance (Lm), and biochemical (Lb) relative limitations to photosynthesis were estimated following The stomatal conductance .where Ac with respect to Cc.where Amax changed significantly , the absolute contribution of stomatal conductance limitation (SL), mesophyll conductance (MCL), and biochemical photosynthetic capacity limitation (BL) to observed change of Amax were estimated following Factors for which Amax between the reference and the other treatments (within each factor) divided by Amax of the reference.where gm and the relationship between gm and the other traits were carried out using SAS version 9.4.Data analysis assessing the effect of the environmental factors on 2, canopy level and copper, the effect of treatments on light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Amax), gm, and gsw was assessed separately for each response variable, using mixed model analyses of variance of the primary data , Amax, significantly increased from 7.19±0.44 µmol m−2 s−1 on average at the bottom leaves to 13.15±0.45 µmol m−2 s−1 at the mid-canopy, to 16.29±0.53 µmol m−2 s−1 at the upper canopy  to the top of the canopy (0.24±0.02 mol m−2 s−1) (gsw) was the lowest at the bottom canopy (0.17±0.01 mol H2O m−2 s−1) and then increased to 0.36±0.02 mol H2O m−2 s−1 at the mid and upper canopy (gm/gsc ratio was significantly greater at the upper canopy (1.17±0.11), compared with the mid-canopy leaves (0.88±0.09) and was not different everywhere else (Vcmax increased similarly to Amax and gm from the bottom to the top of the canopy (Light-saturated photosynthetic rate at an ambient COr canopy . Similarm−2 s−1) . Stomatar canopy . The gm/ere else . Vcmax ie canopy ; howevere canopy .2 had no effect on average Amax (14.43±0.60 µmol m−2 s−1), gm (0.21±0.02 mol m−2 s−1) and gm/gsc (1.09±0.11) (gsw was higher (0.40±0.03 mol H2O m−2 s−1) under ‘Ambient’, compared with ‘Elevated’ CO2 (0.32±0.02 mol H2O m−2 s−1) (Increased atmospheric CO09±0.11) . Howeverm−2 s−1) .Amax was not affected when soil Cu concentration increased from 0 to 20 or 75 µM (9.67±0.95 µmol m−2 s−1)  and high Cu treatment , compared with control treatment (gm and the gm/gsc ratio (m−2 s−1) . It shoureatment . Increassc ratio , D.Amax was significantly greater (16.07±0.61 µmol m−2 s−1) under high soil nitrogen  compared with low nitrogen treatment  (gsw (from 0.29±0.03 in LN to 0.36±0.03 mol m−2 s−1 in HN) and gm (from 0.19±0.02 to 0.23±0.02 to mol m−2 s−1), but had no effect on the gm/gsc ratio (1.38±0.16 on average) (m−2 s−1) . A high average) .Amax decreased by drought , dropping from 17.13±0.71 µmol m−2 s−1 to 14.62± 0.91 µmol m−2 s−1 on average with the minimum value (3.83 µmol m−2 s−1) much lower than in watered trees (8.90 µmol m−2 s−1)  . As expenditions . Drought deficit . In addi drought .2 diffusion (up to 75%): stomatal limitation (Ls) and mesophyll limitation (Lm) (Lb) of photosynthesis rate was relatively low. Higher atmospheric CO2 decreased biochemical limitation (16.62% to 14.73%) and increased mesophyll limitation (from 41.80% to 44.28%) while stomatal limitation remained unchanged. Within the canopy, stomatal and biochemical limitations were the greatest in the upper (47.79%) and the middle (16.05%) layers of the canopy, respectively (Amax (58.04 %) from the top, as a reference, to the bottom of the canopy  was mostly caused by mesophyll (absolute limitation=29.48%), followed by stomatal (19.16%) limitation and to a lesser extent by Vcmax (5.11%). At the middle of the canopy, the decrease of Amax (21.58%) was mostly due to gm (13.15%) and to a lesser extent to Vcmax (4.74%) while the contribution of gsc was marginal (2.76%). The copper stress resulted in an increase of the stomatal limitation and a decrease in mesophyll and biochemical limitations. Change in soil nitrogen did not affect the status of the limitations. The decrease of Amax (20.11 %) under low soil nitrogen was mostly caused by gsc (9.38%) and gm (7.58%) and to a lesser extent by Vcmax (1.42%). Water stress increased stomatal limitation and decreased biochemical limitation but had no effect on mesophyll limitation (Amax (21.02%) under water deficit was mainly due to stomatal (15.22 %) and mesophyll limitation (7.64 %).In general, photosynthetic rate was mostly limited by COion (Lm) . Biochemectively . The mesmitation . TherefoAmax was strongly correlated to both gsw and gm (P=0.001) and to Vcmax (P=0.001) over all the studies (gm was significantly correlated to gsw (P=0.04). However, the relationship was not linear. gm was the highest (0.4–0.5 mmol m−2 s−1) when gsw values were intermediate (0.2–0.4 mol m−2 s−1), and lowest at high gsw values  (n=12). Leaf nitrogen content reported by three studies showed a significant correlation between gm and N content per area (Narea) (gm increased with Narea until a saturation point (~0.25 mol m−2 s−1).We found a significant negative exponential relationship between SLA and P=0.001)  based on (Narea) . gm incrgm within the canopy and its mechanistic basis are scarce, in particular for Populus spp. This situation may explain why most global carbon cycle models remain ‘gm-lacking’, with possible consequences, such as overestimation of the fertilization effect of CO2 on global gross primary production and underestimation of water-use efficiency (WUE) and canopy gross photosynthesis under future climate  Franco. A decrease of gm from the bottom to the top of the canopy was also reported (gm limitation under shade conditions (mid and bottom of canopy), which may lead to an overestimation of canopy photosynthesis. Overall, our results highlight the need to incorporate the acclimation of gm to light conditions along the canopy in process-based models.The steep and parallel increase of gm and SLA, comparable to previous studies   and thicker chloroplasts  exposed to 200 µM Ni under a hydroponic set-up (compared with control of 30 µM Ni). This reduction of gm might be attributed to an alteration of leaf structure by toxic effects of high concentrations of heavy metals in mesophyll cells  altered CO2 diffusion through aquaporins, a membrane channel of CO2 diffusion, in faba bean (Vicia faba L.)   and sign. & Gray .Amax by the enhancement of Vcmax in response to more available soil nitrogen has been established in the literature. However, the possible contribution of gm to this augmentation remains unexplored for several species. Our results showed a concomitant increase of gm with a higher supply of N. A positive correlation between the level of expression of aquaporin genes (plasma membrane intrinsic proteins and tonoplast intrinsic proteins) and gm has been reported . This suggests that the limitations to photosynthesis resulting from low soil nitrogen are more attributable to CO2 diffusion for Populus spp.The increase of gm in response to soil water deficit (2 (Ci). gm and gs decline concomitantly, which has the effect of keeping the gm/gsc ratio constant for all species and between well-watered and water-stressed plants, but with variation between plant functional types. We report similar gm/gsc ratios within our soil moisture dataset. However, reports in poplar have shown that this concomitant decline is not present all the time or within the full range of gm and gs values observed. gm remained unchanged (~0.3 mol m–2 s–1) following soil drying until Ψ leaf≈−1.2 MPa, after which gm decreased significantly. Our results showed that although gm/gs increased under water deficit conditions, stomatal conductance was, in absolute term, the most important limitation to Amax, as reported elsewhere , compared with a wetter year (Ψ soil≈−0.2 MPa). In P. tremula L., gm significantly declined when Ψ leaf of saplings dropped from −0.3 to −0.7 MPa due to applied osmotic stress  were reported by gm, as well as gs, Vcmax, and J of species from drier regions was less sensitive to water deficit, which maintains transpiration and photosynthesis activity at higher rates under drought, compared with species from the mesic environment. Olea europaea L. (evergreen sclerophyllous) but not in Prunus persica L. (deciduous broadleaf), depending on age-related variation in mesophyll anatomy.Adaptation to the local environment might be a key driver of gm in Populus spp. varies predictably along light gradients and that it responds to changes in soil moisture and nutrient availability, but is not affected by metal concentration and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Although metabolic processes noticeably influence the response of gm to environmental changes, physical constraints through leaf development and ageing need to be considered in scaling photosynthesis from leaf to canopy, and in breeding programs for high WUE. Because fast-growing Populus spp. trees are important players in combating climate change, mitigating carbon emissions to some extent, comparisons of genotypes with different adaptations to changing environments and breeding for novel genotype–climate associations are urgently needed. This study shows that the variability of gm in different experimental conditions offers a potential indicator for improving Populus spp. productivity and resilience. However, more research is yet needed, also combined with anatomical studies, to better understand the sources of variation of CO2 diffusion through the mesophyll and their consequences on carbon assimilation and growth.The present review shows that gm and growth. For that, a detailed evaluation of the genotypic control of the variances and clonal heritability of gm is needed. Finally, the identification of molecular bases of the regulation of gm is necessary to further refine a multi-criteria early selection approach of poplar clones dedicated to the future forestry capable of ensuring better productivity and increased resistance to environmental stresses .Moreover, determination of the efficiency and optimal age for early selection of fast-growing poplar clones require an understanding of the genetic control and age-based genetic correlations for traits related to JXB online.The following supplementary data are available at Table S1. Analysis of variance of the effect of different factors on photosynthesis-related traits.erab127_suppl_Supplementary_Table_S1Click here for additional data file.


As life expectancy increases, Osteoarthritis (OA) is becoming a more frequently seen chronic joint disease. The main characteristics of OA are loss of articular cartilage, subchondral bone sclerosis, and synovial inflammation. Baicalein (Bai), a traditional Chinese medicine extracted from Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi, has been demonstrated to exert notable anti-inflammatory effects in previous studies, suggesting its potential effect in the treatment of OA. In this study, we first predicted the action targets of Bai, mapped target genes related to OA, identified potential anti-OA targets for Bai, performed gene ontology (GO) enrichment, and KEGG signaling pathway analyses of the action targets, and analyzed the molecular docking of key Bai targets. Additionally, the effect and potential mechanism of Bai against OA were verified in mouse knee OA models induced by destabilized medial meniscus (DMM) surgery. GO and KEGG analyses showed that 19 anti-OA targets were mainly involved in the response to oxidative stress, the response to hypoxia and apoptosis, and the PI3K-Akt and p53 signaling pathways. Molecular docking results indicated that BAX, BCL 2, and Caspase 3 enriched in the apoptotic signaling pathway have high binding affinity with Bai. Validation experiments showed that Bai can significantly attenuate the loss of articular cartilage (OARSI score), suppress synovial inflammation (synovitis score), and ameliorate subchondral bone resorption measured by micro-CT. In addition, Bai notably inhibited the expression of apoptosis-related proteins in articular cartilage . By combining network pharmacology with experimental validation, our study identifies and verifies the importance of the apoptotic signaling pathway in the treatment of OA by Bai. Bai may have promising application and potential therapeutic value in OA treatment. Osteoarthritis (OA) is a severe, debilitating disease that affects the whole joint system and that is characterized by cartilage degeneration, subchondral bone sclerosis, and synovial hypertrophy . As of 2Apoptosis is a highly regulated, active process of cell death involved in development, homeostasis, and aging. Numerous studies have found that chondrocyte apoptosis is positively correlated with the severity of OA . ApoptosAs a critical component of complementary and alternative medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plays an essential role in treating OA. Baicalein (Bai) is a flavonoid extracted from Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi (Huang Qin in Chinese), a medical plant commonly used in different countries for adjuvant therapy for inflammation, diabetes, and cancers . AdditioIn the present study, we investigated the antiarthritic effects of Bai in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) induced by destabilized medial meniscus (DMM) surgery in mice and explored the underlying molecular mechanisms based on network pharmacology and molecular docking analyses.https://www.UniProt.org/) with the species limited to “Homo sapiens”. OA-related targets were obtained by searching the database with the keyword “osteoarthritis”. The databases include The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) (http://omim.org/), the Therapeutic Targets Database (TTD) (http://bidd.nus.edu.sg/group/cjttd/), the PharmGKB (https://www.pharmgkb.org/), the DrugBank (https://www.drugbank.ca/), and the human gene database GeneCards (http://www.genecards.org/).The putative targets of Bai were collected from the Traditional Chinese Medicine Database and Analysis Platform (TCMSP) database. The official symbols of Bai targets were generated through the UniProt database (https://david.ncifcrf.gov/) v6.8 was used to analyze the Gene Ontology (GO) function, and KEGG pathway enrichment of proteins involved in the PPI network. The target proteins involved in the cellular components (CCs), molecular functions (MFs), biological processes (BPs), and pathways were also described.To elucidate the role of target proteins that interact with Bai in gene function and signaling pathways, the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery , http://www.rcsb.org/ and after corresponding processing by the AutoDock Tool, the files were finally converted to PDBQT format for molecular docking in PyMOL software .To test the reliability of Bai-target interactions and explore accurate binding modes, we selected hub genes of key enrichment pathways as molecular receptors and Bai for molecular docking analysis. The raw file of Bai (MOL2 format) was downloaded from the PubChem database : 2019-0004] and housed under a 12-h light/dark cycle with free access to food and water. After 1 week of adaptive feeding, the mice were subjected to DMM surgery to the right knee or sham surgery as described . BrieflyBai (≥98% purity) was purchased from Yongjian Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. . Bai was dissolved in 0.5% sodium carboxyl methyl cellulose (5 mg/ml). Eighteen mice were randomly and equally divided into three groups: the sham group, DMM group, and DMM + Bai group. Starting at 1 week after DMM surgery, mice in the Bai group (50 mg/kg)  or sham 3), bone volume fraction , trabecular thickness , trabecular separation , and trabecular number .The knee joint images of mice were scanned by micro-CT equipment and a reconstruction system . Data were analyzed using data analysis software (CTAn v1.9) and three-dimensional model visualization software (CTVol v2.0). In addition to the visual assessment of structural pictures, quantitative morphometry indices were determined from microtomographic data based on three-dimensional morphometry. A region of interest was identified between the proximal tibia growth plate and tibial plateau. The following indices were subsequently evaluated: bone volume  for 1 month. Next, the cartilage tissues were dehydrated in a graded ethanol series, embedded in paraffin, and cut into 4.0-μm sections. Subsequently, articular cartilage degeneration was evaluated by two staining techniques. Briefly, for hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining, the cartilage samples were stained with hematoxylin for 5 min and then stained with eosin for 40 s, followed by observation under a microscope. For Safranin O/fast green staining, the samples were stained with 0.02% fast green for 30 min, 1% acetic acid for 10 s, and 1.5% Safranin O for 3 min. After being dehydrated and mounted with neutral balsam, the cartilage samples were observed under a microscope. Two independent experienced researchers who were blinded to the study analyzed cartilage degenerative and synovial changes based on the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) scoring system  and synoIn brief, the paraffin-embedded cartilage tissue sections were dewaxed in xylene and dehydrated in a graded alcohol series, and the sections were subjected to antigen retrieval in proteinase K for 15 min at 37°C. Next, the slices were blocked with 5% BSA in TBST for 30 min, incubated with primary antibody  at 4°C overnight, and then incubated with a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody  at room temperature for 2 h. The color reactions were finally performed using a DAB peroxidase substrate (Vector Laboratories) after treatment of the sections with a mixture of avidin and biotinylated horseradish peroxidase. The stained images were photographed using a light microscope and analyzed by Image-Pro Plus software.Serum levels of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β  and TNF-α  were detected using conventional ELISA kits according to instructions provided by the manufacturer.® GreenER SuperMix (Takara). Relative gene expression was calculated using the 2−ΔΔCt method. The primers used were as follows: β-actin: forward 5′-ACATCCGTAAAGACCTCTATGCC-3′, reverse 5′-TACTCCTGCTTGCTGATCCAC -3′; BAX: forward 5′- TGAAGACAGGGGCCTTTTTG -3′, reverse 5′- AATTCGCCGGAGACACTCG -3′; Caspase 3: forward 5′- TCTGACTGGAAAGCCGAAACTCT -3′, reverse 5′- AGCCATCTCCTCATCAGTCCCA -3′; BCL 2: forward 5′- TTGAAAACCGAACCAGGAATTGC -3′, reverse 5′- GTCCTGTGCCACTTGCTCT -3′.Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Takara) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and was reverse-transcribed into cDNA using a PrimeScript RT reagent kit (Takara). Subsequently, real-time PCR was performed using SYBRBriefly, cartilage tissues were mixed with RIPA lysate and ground for 10–15 min. Samples were agitated on ice for 30 min, and then the supernatant was collected. Bicinchoninic acid (BCA) analysis was used to qualify the concentration of total proteins. Proteins were then separated by 8% SDS–PAGE and transferred to PVDF membranes (Bio–Rad), followed by blocking with 5% nonfat milk at room temperature for 1 h. After incubating with primary antibody  at 4°C overnight, the membranes were washed by TBST and incubated with a secondary antibody at room temperature for 1 h. Later, proteins were scanned and analyzed by a chemiluminescence system and autoradiography.t-test was used to determine the significance of differences between groups. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 7.0 software. All quantitative data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (‾χ ± SD). One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s A total of 37 potential targets of Bai were found based on screening in the TCMSP database, 2085 OA-related targets were extracted from the GeneCards, DrugBank, TTD, PharmGKB, and OMIM databases, and a total of 19 anti-OA targets were extracted, including BCL2, CASP3, BAX, and PTGS2 . In addiTo investigate the effect of Bai treatment on synovial inflammation in DMM-induced OA, histological analysis with HE staining of the knee joints was performed. Compared with the sham group mice, DMM model mice showed severe synovial hyperplasia, inflammatory cell infiltration into synovial tissues, and pannus formation . As showTo assess the effect of Bai treatment on cartilage degradation and osteophyte formation in KOA mice, histological analysis with Safranin O/fast green staining was performed. Articular cartilage exhibited a regular morphological structure in the sham group. Compared with sham group cartilage, DMM group cartilage showed superficial destruction, erosion, proteoglycan loss, and apparent hypocellularity. Compared with the DMM condition, Bai treatment led to a dramatic increase in articular cartilage thickness and amelioration of cartilage damage . The secIn the early stage of OA, bone loss is associated with increased bone remodeling . To inveChondrocyte apoptosis is an important cause of articular cartilage degeneration . We furtTo verify the mechanism of Bai in treating OA by inhibiting chondrocyte apoptosis based on molecular docking, the expression levels of several key proteins  involved in apoptosis signaling pathways were detected. As shown in OA is typically characterized by degeneration and loss of articular cartilage and involves all tissues of the joint, including subchondral bone, and the synovial membrane . AlthougBai is a natural product with anti-inflammatory properties . The topThrough ELISA, we found that Bai significantly inhibited the expression of TNF-α and IL1β. Studies have shown that the cytokines IL-1β and TNF-α can promote inflammation and apoptosis of chondrocytes, inhibit the expression of aggrecan, and stimulate the expression of MMPs, thus contributing to the pathogenesis of OA . TherefoIncreasing evidence shows that osteoclast activity is increased in early OA, disturbing the equilibrium between bone formation and resorption, which can ultimately lead to a marked reduction in subchondral bone thickness . Furtherin vitro, and further research is needed in the future.In conclusion, the current study shows that Bai plays a therapeutic role in OA by inhibiting chondrocyte apoptosis, alleviating cartilage destruction, reducing synovial inflammation, and improving subchondral bone microstructure. Our results also indicate that a network pharmacology approach is a powerful tool for exploring the molecular targets of herbs. Accordingly, our study suggests that Bai has potential as a drug to slow the pathological progression of OA. Of course, a limitation of our study is that we did not investigate the direct mechanism of the apoptotic pathway affecting OA pathogenesis


Good’s syndrome is a rare, adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome associated with thymomas. Here, we present a 71-year-old, previously healthy male with a history of opportunistic infections status post-thymectomy, who presented with a septic knee complicated with bacteremia without any inciting factor. Therefore, a diagnosis of Good syndrome was made. While this is a rare disease, clinicians should have a high suspicion in patients with a history of thymoma. Early diagnosis and treatment can reduce opportunistic infections and improve morbidity and mortality. Good’s syndrome is a rare, adult-onset, T-cell immunodeficiency syndrome associated with thymomas . It was Pasteurella multocida five months prior to this admission, presented with a three-week history of worsening pain, erythema, swelling and redness of right knee. It was associated with low-grade fevers, chills, and inability to bear weight on the right leg. He denied any recent trauma, falls, surgeries, or insect bites to the knee. The patient had come to the emergency department three days prior with a similar complaint of right knee pain. Blood cultures and arthrocentesis cultures from that visit were positive for Achromobacter xylosoxidans/denitrificans. The patient was notified by the hospital and asked to come back to the hospital for antibiotic therapy. On the day of admission, the radiograph of the right knee was negative for osseous abnormalities. The patient underwent debridement of the right knee joint by orthopedic surgery. Intraoperative wound cultures and repeat blood cultures were positive for Achromobacter xylosoxidans/denitrificans.A 71-year-old male, with a past medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anterior mediastinal mass found to be a type AB thymoma  screen, rapid plasma reagin (RPR), acute hepatitis panel, rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (ANA), and acetylcholine receptor antibody were negative. Peripheral blood smear showed a slightly diminished white count with relative monocytosis without blasts, normocytic normochromic anemia without schistocytes, and adequate platelet count. Immunoglobulin panel was done, which showed immunoglobulin G (IgG) <30 (reference range 603-1616 mg/dL), IgG1 <14 (reference range 248-810 mg/dL), IgG2 4 (reference range 130-555 mg/dL), IgG3 <1 (reference range 15-102 mg/dL), IgG 4 <1 (reference range 2-96 mg/dL), IgA <5 (reference range 61-437 mg/dL), and IgM <5 (reference range 15-143 mg/dL). Absolute CD4 count was 117/uL (359-1519), absolute CD8 count was 73/uL (109-897), and T lymphocyte CD4/CD8 ratio was 1.56. A two-dimensional (2D) echocardiogram showed normal systolic function with an ejection fraction of 60%-64%, without any obvious vegetation or thrombus. CT scan of the abdomen/pelvis with intravenous contrast was unremarkable.Given the history of thymoma with severe immunodeficiency, a diagnosis of Good’s syndrome was made. Infectious disease was consulted, and the patient was started on antibiotic therapy with intravenous (IV) meropenem. He was given one dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in the hospital and developed an anaphylactic reaction requiring one night stay in the intensive care unit for supportive management and monitoring. The patient was discharged to a skilled nursing facility with six weeks of intravenous antibiotic therapy and physical therapy. He was arranged to follow up with an allergy and immunology specialist outpatient for further management of Good’s syndrome with IVIG.While Good’s syndrome was first described some time ago, there have only been a few hundred cases reported in the literature. The study by Malphette et al. showed that usually patients with Good’s syndrome were diagnosed in their 50s-60s, without any significant gender predominance [Pasteurella multocida. Pasteurella multocida is a rare pathogen that causes bacteremia, so an extensive literature review was conducted. Limited cases of bacteremia due to Pasteurella multocida were observed in patients who were usually immunocompromised due to malignancies, systemic infection, end-stage renal disease, cardiac disease, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cirrhosis, or advanced age [Two months after his thymectomy, the patient was admitted to the hospital with septic shock with bacteremia and severe bilateral pneumonia due to nced age -8. WhileAchromobacter xylosoxidans/denitrificans without any inciting traumatic event. It is an aerobic motile oxidase-positive, gram-negative bacillus that was first described in 1971 from chronic, purulent otitis media [Achromobacter xylosoxidans/denitrificans causing bacteremia and the majority of the patients were severely immunocompromised with malignancies, renal or cardiovascular disease, history of intravenous drug use, and history of the prosthetic valve with endocarditis [During this admission, the patient presented with a septic knee and bacteremia due to carditis . Due to carditis .Campylobacter, Shigella, or Salmonella and 38% of the patients developed opportunistic infections such as oral thrush, esophageal candidiasis, cytomegalovirus (CMV)-associated disease, aspergillosis, and even disseminated Mycobacterium tuberculosis [Achromobacter xylosoxidans/denitrificans. In a study by Malphette et al., 95% of the patients who were found to have Good’s syndrome developed infectious complications, including pneumonia, recurrent bronchitis, and sinusitis, chronic diarrhea secondary to rculosis ,11-13, hWhile the pathophysiology of immunodeficiency remains elusive, there have been some proposed hypotheses. In a recent study by Guevara et al., it was hypothesized that the underlying mechanism of Good’s syndrome may be due to the improper differentiation of plasma cells, loss of naive memory of the CD4+ T cell population that may lead to defects in cell-mediated immunity and increase susceptibility to infections and anti-cytokine antibodies (mainly interferon (IFN) α, IFN-β, interleukin (IL) 1α, IL-12, IL-17A) that may have a negative effect on the growth and differentiation of pro B lymphocytes .Additionally, it is also important to note that, in the study by Malphette et al., 75% of patients with Good’s syndrome had autoimmune conditions, including oral lichen planus, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, inflammatory bowel disease, and neutropenia [Treatment of this disease usually involves resection of the thymoma, proper targeted antibiotic therapy in patients with underlying infection, and a thorough immunological workup. In patients with global hypogammaglobulinemia, IVIG is indicated -5,14. OuGood’s syndrome is a rare condition, and a high degree of suspicion is needed for the early diagnosis of this disease. In patients with a benign thymoma, it is critical to recognize the possibility of concomitant immunodeficiency and autoimmunity, and these should be thoroughly worked up in an interdisciplinary manner. These patients are also very susceptible to bacterial, viral, fungal, and opportunistic infections and should be appropriately immunized.