Dear Dr. Hebert-Dufresne,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Spatial epidemiology and adaptive targeted sampling to manage the Chagas disease vector Triatoma dimidiata" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

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

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Marilia Sá Carvalho

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Guilherme Werneck

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The presented methods are well described and support the proposed objectives. The methods are well organized and easy to understand. The information was presented in a simple and transparent way.

Yes. The objectives of the study are clearly articulated with the hypothesis.

Yes. The study design is appropriate.

No. The population is not clearly described. More details in the "Summary and General Comments" section.

Yes. The sample size is sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested.

Yes. The statistical analysis used to support conclusions was clear.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written, with objectives consistent and consolidated hypothesis.

Reviewer #3: The objectives of the study were clearly articulated with a clear and testable hypothesis. The study design is appropriate to address the exposed goals.

The studied population was sufficiently described in the manuscript and the size in the sample was sufficient for the actual tests.

Good geostatistic solutions were found for the resolution of study questions.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are well presented. The ideas and information presented are sequential and logical. The results are well supported by informative figures and tables. 

Consider better describe the topic "simulation results" and explain the reason why the proposed model "produce designs, which failed to satisfy the design target of reducing the true infestation rate below 5%," and how does it impact a practical application of you idea (*).

The analysis presented matches the analysis plan.

The results are clearly and well presented.

The figures are informative, and in a sufficient quality.

Reviewer #2: The results are clearly and the figures and tables are of sufficient quality for clarity.

Reviewer #3: The results were very well presented and in total sync with the objectives of the study.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The article suggests new options for implementing long-term T. dimidiata vector control. Describe an adaptive strategy for public health interventions, which transitions from prioritizing areas of greatest uncertainty to those perceived to be most at risk, using data from five villages in southeastern Guatemala.

This is an interesting approach bringing relevant strategies aiming to interrupt disease transfer, targeting only a subset of house community. Also, demonstrate how sampling strategies could compliment the EcoHealth initiative to conserve insecticide, the time of health personnel and other important approaches.

The conclusions are supported by the data presented.

The limitations of analysis are clearly described.

The authors discuss well how these data can be helpful.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Spatial epidemiology and adaptive targeted sampling to manage the Chagas disease vector Triatoma dimidiata" brings some important challenges for entomological surveillance, as the operational capacity of the service, to reduce the proportion of infected households with Triatoma dimidiata in short time.

Reviewer #3: The conclusions of the study were correctly placed. Do not extrapolate the capacity of the study. Leaving the goal of the study to be another useful tool in combating Chagas in small communities.

The authors were also quite clear in the study limitations and the need for new developments and approaches.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Specific Comments

Study population and sample collection

The manuscript need to better describe the study population and the sampling methods; 

The manuscript should inform the proportion of "missing data" removed from the study, for better understanding of readers.(*)

Taking into consideration the analysis of this proportion by each location. 

___________

Line 8 – Suggestion of change: Triatomine levels – triatomine infestation levels. 

Line 11 – Better develop the idea of seroprevalence in this sentence. Is this the seroprevalence of domestic animals, of humans? Please, be more informative.

Line 16 – Suggestion of change: … is endemic to the continent and infests peridomestic and sylvatic environments … – … is endemic to the continent, living at sylvatic and infesting peridomestics (domestic?) environments…

Line 114 – The manuscript does not explain numbers of “missing information”  and how much it represents the total and by each location;

Line 118 – Do the team member follow some specific protocol to search the houses and find the T. cruzi vectors?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: First I would like to congratulate the work presented. Demonstrated methodological clarity and alignment with the very significant goals. It was also written very clearly.

That said I would like to put some suggestions that I believe can enrich work or future unfolding.

The authors selected socioeconomic variables all linked to the domicile and perehyde. Surely the use of indicators expressing the ecological condition of the surroundings of households and the village will erich the work.

The vectors despite being well adapted to the human domicile can have in the external areas of the domicile and the ecological niches that operate from reservoirs for future infestations. In addition to the ecological indicators I believe that the description and the preparation of cultural indicators of the locations and residents of households would be much relevant. They are certainly difficult to operational.

In both cases if it is not possible to controll the future study of these types of ecological and cultural indicators that would approach the study of the theoretical reference presented in it. That at least make a description of the ecological framework and culture from locations such as percentage of vegetated area, rainfall etc.

Finally I suggest that they approach the environmental problems intriscated the use of insetiside to the environment as well as the selection of resistant individuals in the veonstial population.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The main objective of this research was duly achieved, the methodologies and results are duly described and discussed. Congratulations. Despite that, as a neglected population disease, it is important to bring relevant techniques, such as those presented by the authors in this publication, to governments and vulnerable communities accessibly. As a suggestion, evaluate the possibility of including in the discussion of this manuscript the necessity of developing a tool (system or application), widely accessible, to help regional leaders and government to implement spatial geoestatitical models, helping mitigate the reality of these communities, in a more accessible way. Alternatively, suggesting the validation of the proposed methods in other countries will help achieve breadth and certification of the methods widely.

Specific Comments

Study population and sample collection

The manuscript need to better describe the study population and the sampling methods; 

The manuscript should inform the proportion of "missing data" removed of the study, for better understanding of readers.(*)

Taking into consideration the analysis of this proportion by each location. 

_______________

Line 8 – Suggestion of change: Triatomine levels – triatomine infestation levels. 

Line 11 – Better develop the idea of seroprevalence in this sentence. Is this the seroprevalence of domestic animals, of humans? Please, be more informative.

Line 16 – Suggestion of change: … is endemic to the continent and infests peridomestic and sylvatic environments … – … is endemic to the continent, living at sylvatic and infesting peridomestics (domestic?) environments…

Line 114 – The manuscript does not explain numbers of “missing information”  and how much it represents the total and by each location;

Line 118 – Do the team member follow some specific protocol to search the houses and find the T. cruzi vectors?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

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

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

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

References

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript number.docx

Dear Dr. Hebert-Dufresne,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Spatial epidemiology and adaptive targeted sampling to manage the Chagas disease vector Triatoma dimidiata' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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 Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Marilia Sá Carvalho

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Guilherme Werneck

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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