Dear Dr Cavany,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript, 'Optimizing the deployment of ultra-low volume and indoor residual spraying for dengue outbreak response', to PLOS Computational Biology. As with all papers submitted to the journal, yours was fully evaluated by the PLOS Computational Biology editorial team, and in this case, by two independent peer reviewers.

Both reviewers appreciated the contribution of this work; they differed however on their comments regarding clarity and completeness of the presentation. They identified some aspects of the manuscript that should be improved, in particular referee 2. 

We would therefore like to ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and we encourage you to respond to particular issues Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.raised.

In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:

(1) A detailed list of your responses to the review comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. We require a file of this nature before your manuscript is passed back to the editors.

(2) A copy of your manuscript with the changes highlighted (encouraged). We encourage authors, if possible to show clearly where changes have been made to their manuscript e.g. by highlighting text.

(3) A striking still image to accompany your article (optional). If the image is judged to be suitable by the editors, it may be featured on our website and might be chosen as the issue image for that month. These square, high-quality images should be accompanied by a short caption. Please note as well that there should be no copyright restrictions on the use of the image, so that it can be published under the Open-Access license and be subject only to appropriate attribution.

Before you resubmit your manuscript, please consult our Submission Checklist to ensure your manuscript is formatted correctly for PLOS Computational Biology: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/static/checklist.action. Some key points to remember are:

- Figures uploaded separately as TIFF or EPS files (if you wish, your figures may remain in your main manuscript file in addition).

- Supporting Information uploaded as separate files, titled 'Dataset', 'Figure', 'Table', 'Text', 'Protocol', 'Audio', or 'Video'.

- Funding information in the 'Financial Disclosure' box in the online system.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by email at ploscompbiol@plos.org.

If you have any questions or concerns while you make these revisions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Mercedes Pascual

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Virginia Pitzer

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

[LINK]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Summary

Application of ultra-low volume spraying remains the primary intervention strategy against dengue. The authors demonstrate that targeted indoor residual spraying can more effectively control dengue using a mathematical model calibrated to data from Iquitos, Peru.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and would recommend it for publication given the following (very) minor revisions aimed at clarifying figures and explaining model dynamics.

Minor points:

1. The first citation in the paper on line 64 is inappropriate for the statement. The cited paper only presents several outbreaks in one Brazilian. Please can the authors consider a different reference giving an idea of rising global dengue incidence.

2. Although most axis labels in Figures 3, 4 and 7 are the same, please add axis labels.

3. For Figure 3c, please can the authors consider adding a colourbar legend so the reader can more easily compare total predicted human infections with other subfigures.

4. The bi-stable behavior of the total number of infections at low thresholds (around 200 cases per month) with ULV spraying (Figure 5, bottom panels) is interesting. Is this due to the stochasticity of the model? I.e. in some simulations is the quota used up before a large outbreak, but in other simulations is there just enough sprays remaining to avert these infections?

5. Similarly, can the authors explain the tri-stable dynamics of the total number of infections at large thresholds (600 cases per month and above) with TIRS.

Reviewer #2: the review is uploaded as an attachment

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCOMPBIOL-D-19-01721.pdf

Dear Mr. Cavany,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Optimizing the deployment of ultra-low volume and indoor residual spraying for dengue outbreak response' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch within two working days with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Mercedes Pascual

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Virginia Pitzer

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************