PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01479

Quantifying vector diversion effects in zoonotic systems: A modelling framework for arbovirus transmission between reservoir and dead-end hosts

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. Fairbanks,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology'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.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Dec 28 2025 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 ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jennifer A. Flegg

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Jennifer Flegg

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Journal Requirements:

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures

3) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

4) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

- Figure 2. Please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

5) When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

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

Reviewer #1: Article Review – Quantifying vector diversion effects in zoonotic systems: A modelling framework for arbovirus transmission between reservoir and dead-end hosts (Fairbanks, Baylis, Daly, and Tildesley)

Abstract

•Great! Clear, concise and well-written.

Author summary

•Nice. Clear explanation of problem and solution you have found.

Introduction

•Definition of vectorial capacity and relation to basic reproductive number could be made more clear. Can you provide a simple example, equation, or illustration? Or perhaps start from your explanation of the basic reproductive number (the last sentence of the second paragraph), as this is a familiar concept that can be broken down into the parts you define.

•For consistency, it looks like you’re missing a line skip between the first and second paragraph.

•At the start of paragraph three, please clarify that you are referring to the one-host limitation from you previous model, and that addressing this limitation is a motivation for your current study.

Methods

Model development

•Please find a consistent way to distinguish the two models throughout. For example, “baseline” vs. “extended”, or “single-host” vs. “between-host”/“multiple host”, or something along those lines.

•It might be helpful to provide the rVC equation in paragraph one.

Model application

•Nice, I appreciated your explanation of why a gamma distribution was chosen.

•Please be consistent with use of commas, if you write 26,000, then 2000 should be 2,000.

•Great, this section explains the study and assumptions very well.

Results

•Well presented, Figure 2 is especially nice.

•I suggest using a different line style or color for “Disarming” in Figure 4, it’s very difficult to distinguish from “Postprandial killing.” Also, consider adding “due to repellant” to the x-axis label.

Discussion

•Include a citation for the “urban heat island effect” in paragraph three.

•I might suggest combining paragraphs two and three, there is a lot of information here about temperature that could be condensed. It detracts slightly from your main point and star contributions described in the last three paragraphs.

•Missing citation in paragraph four: [?]

Supplementary Information

•Missing reference after Equation (2)

* Be sure to make your code available on GitHub

Reviewer #2: The article is well written and logically structured. The analysis appears to represent a novel extension to existing methods. I would like to see several issues addressed before the paper is further considered for publication.

Major concerns:

• Lack of uncertainty analysis and reporting. All key results are reported as point estimates without any consideration of potential uncertainty.

• Insufficient methodological detail is provided in the main text. I suggest content is shifted from the supp material to the main text.

• Limitations of the analysis are not described in the discussion section and very little reference is made to other similar work.

Please provide line numbers on future submissions to assist with the review process.

Other comments:

2.1 Model development

Insufficient methodological details have been provided on this section. At minimum, I suggest that the authors shift the model equations from the supp material into the main text.

2.2. Model application

“vector life-span p day” should be “per day”?

“there we set ph->v = 1”. Define this parameter.

“…parameterised using Bayesian methods and data from 2145 mosquitoes”. Why state the methods for this study and not the others?

“This parameterisation includes the probability of transmission from host to vector and therefore we set ρh→v = 1 for reservoir hosts.” I don’t follow this logic. Why is the probability equal to 1?

“Vollans et al. [28] found that the gamma and Weibull distributions performed similarly”. Just confirming that you mean these distributions were equally good fits for the EIP?

“We calculate the rVC for temperatures between 10 and 32 degrees”. What temperature value? Daily minimum? Daily maximum? Daily mean? Monthly mean?

2.2.2

This is the first mention of the model being applied in the UK. Why is the model applied in the UK? No local cases of WNV have ever been reported in the UK (although it has been found in mosquitoes). I suggest that you add this context to the introduction to motivate your analysis. What are the possible reservoir host species in this setting?

What do you mean by “simulate” in this section?

3 Results

3.1 Model development – consider deleting this section. It should be covered in the methods.

3.2

Figure 1 – the short dash and long dash lines are very similar. Please use different indicators.

3.4

“In our scenario, where the model is parameterised to describe WNV transmission by Cx. pipiens, we see an increase in vectorial capacity of up to 23.4%.” Given what assumptions about the intervention? These must also be stated.

Figure 3 caption. “When a tool is used by…” Should this be when a tool is “applied to”?

“Percentage of blood meals taken from reservoir host” – this not described in the Figure 3 caption – please add.

Figure 4: Again, short and long dash lines are too similar. Please change.

4. Discussion

“Independently” – what do you mean by this?

“in line with previous estimates”. Please elaborate here. What did these studies find? What was their approach? How it is similar/different from your approach?

“Many health agencies suggest using repellent to reduce the risk of vector-borne disease [48–50]]. This work shows that for zoonotic diseases this may not always be the case.” The use of “this” in sentence two is confusing. Consider “our study” and re-state the finding that you refer to. Also, I would be very careful here. While you show that rVC can increase when repellent is used by human dead-end hosts, the individuals using repellent are still protected from disease exposure. Also worth considering the important limitations of your work here. You have only considered two hosts and the effect of repellent use in one of those hosts. What about the impact of other wildlife dead-hosts? Bites could be diverted to those hosts instead of the reservoir hosts (i.e. zooprophylaxis). Please discuss.

“This modelling framework is flexible for application to other vectors and pathogens.” Can you say a little more about how your model framework would be applied to the two example systems listed?

“This modelling framework can be used to assess whether these tools are suitable

for use on dead-end hosts, and suggest target product profiles of additional tools for use.” I don’t follow this point, can you say more here?

Supp methods

?? – some citations are missing

Beta is not described.

Equation 3 and Table S2. How are day s and day t different? I got a little confused here.

“…considered the climatic dependence of the rates of gonotrophic cycle completion, vector mortality and pathogen extrinsic incubation period (EIP) completion”. You also consider these dependencies in your work, please described them. Or at least point to section 1.2.1?

What “temp” was used for parameterisation in equations 11, 12, and 13?

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code 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 and code 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 or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Dear Dr Fairbanks,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Quantifying vector diversion effects in zoonotic systems: A modelling framework for arbovirus transmission between reservoir and dead-end hosts' 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 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,

Jennifer A. Flegg

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Jennifer Flegg

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors: <br/>Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my comments and critique, I appreciate the schematics.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been considered or addressed.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code 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 and code 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 or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

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