Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 15, 2022 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr Jankowiak, Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Inferring selection effects in SARS-CoV-2 with Bayesian Viral Allele Selection' to PLOS Genetics. The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some concerns that we ask you address in a revised manuscript. We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. In addition we ask that you: 1) Provide a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 2) Upload a Striking Image with a corresponding caption to accompany your manuscript if one is available (either a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). If this image is judged to be suitable, it may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel square images. For examples, please browse our archive. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Note: we cannot publish copyrighted images. We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we would ask you to let us know the expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org. If present, accompanying reviewer attachments should be included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool. 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. Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your 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 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. PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process. To resubmit, you will need to go to the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder. [LINK] Please let us know if you have any questions while making these revisions. Yours sincerely, Takashi Gojobori Academic Editor PLOS Genetics Bret Payseur Section Editor PLOS Genetics Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #1: A most interesting, well written and presented paper. I have only a few minor comments and suggestions. Line 28: Add computationally before expensive (assuming this is what you mean) and remove from line 30. Line 53: Give a brief I sentence definition of neutral/non-neutral alleles as this is an important aspect of the paper. Lines not given: In methods the sentence begging ‘Since SARS-CoV2 and SARS-CoV-2 are know…’ Split into two sentences as is somewhat hard to read in its current format. Lines 390-391: Spurious alleles you mean not SARS-CoV-2, just be more specific. Line 444/Table1: BA4 does not actually appear in the table so remove from the sentence or add to the table. Table3/Lines469: would be useful to have a column specifying, for those mutations in spike, where in the spike protein they are located. Either as simple as RBD/non-RBD or more specific as you pick up on the FC site later. Line 500: does ‘S-gene’ include RBD or is it exclusive of RBD given that RBD has it’s own category. 4.4 Backtesting: Would be interesting to include omicron BA.4 and BA.5 analysis here, if it is possible to do in a timely manner. This would also make the paper more relevant to the current COVID-19 landscape. Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Jankowiak et al. present a scalable probabilistic method to identify the relative fitness and growth rate of viral lineages that can be applied to a global scale of SARS-CoV-2 sequence data. For a statistical method, BVAS can handle an incredible scale while maintaining high accuracy. The authors did a commendable job in rigorously developing and evaluating this method. The scalability of BVAS is owed to simple and realistic assumptions that most alleles are neutral and can be modeled using a discrete time branching process. On simulated data, BVAS outperforms state-of-the-art in both scale and accuracy. On real SARS-CoV-2 data, it is able to rank variants that match well with experimental data. With backtesting, the authors show that BVAS can be useful to identify concerning SARS-CoV-2 lineages early. The authors also present intriguing results in evaluating the epistatic interactions of mutations using their approach. In my opinion, the manuscript is well-written and publishable in its current form. I have the following minor comments and questions for the authors: 1. Sequencing rates and surveillance efforts are highly non-uniform across different nations. Perhaps the author should discuss how this may affect BVAS and how realistic is its assumption of an i.i.d. sampling rate. 2. Simulated datasets use a sampling rate between 1-64%. It is likely that the COVID-19 sampling rate is a lot lower than 1%. Why not evaluate the results for smaller sampling rate values as well? 3. Simulated dataset use a small reproduction number range of 0.9 to 1.1. The range of R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is much higher. How does BVAS perform when this range is increased? 4. What is the value of sigma-Laplace for data in Fig. 1.? 5. For Fig. 4, why is the hit rate not optimal at #non-neutral sites=10? ********** 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 Genetics 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: Yes: Alexander Stewart Reviewer #2: No |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr Jankowiak, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Inferring selection effects in SARS-CoV-2 with Bayesian Viral Allele Selection" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations! Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made. Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org. In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics! Yours sincerely, Takashi Gojobori Academic Editor PLOS Genetics Bret Payseur Section Editor PLOS Genetics Twitter: @PLOSGenetics ---------------------------------------------------- Comments from the reviewers (if applicable): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Authors: Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my questions and concerns satisfactorily. It might be worth including the author response to my question on the reproduction number range used in simulations in the manuscript. ********** 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 Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information. 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 #2: No ---------------------------------------------------- Data Deposition If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website. The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-22-00711R1 More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support. Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present. ---------------------------------------------------- Press Queries If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org. |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PGENETICS-D-22-00711R1 Inferring selection effects in SARS-CoV-2 with Bayesian Viral Allele Selection Dear Dr Jankowiak, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Inferring selection effects in SARS-CoV-2 with Bayesian Viral Allele Selection" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work! With kind regards, Zsofi Zombor PLOS Genetics On behalf of: The PLOS Genetics Team Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823 plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .