Dear Author,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Prevalence and changing antimicrobial resistance profiles of Shigella spp. isolated from diarrheal patients in Kolkata during 2011-2019" 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.

Dear Author,

The manuscript requires minor modification as suggested below.

Reviewer 1:- No changes suggested

The study is well planned and all methods followed are standard. This is a retrospective analysis, they have achieved all the objectives. The results are in line with the analysis plan with all the results well depicted and clearly stated. The conclusions are supported by the data presented. The authors have addressed public helath as well as importance of antibioc resistance surveillance emphasizing development of treatment guidelines. This is a retrospective analysis which is well planned. The study highlights the importance of evolving antibiotic resistance with clonal diversity.

Reviewer 2:- Minor Revision

The authors retrospectively analysed the occurrence, characteristics, and antimicrobial resistance patterns of various Shigella serotypes isolated from patients with acute diarrhea of the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Kolkata from 2011–2019.

The following are the minor comments to be included by the authors:

Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned.

The conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned.

1. Line 110: Mention the references of studies that have been made across the world to track the epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Shigella spp.

2. Mention the stool macroscropy characteristics (bloody diarrhoea/ watery diarrhoea)

3. Whether all Shigella spp. were typable or few non-typable strains were there.

4. Please mention why during AMR gene detection for β-lactamase genes blaOXA and blaTEM was choosed and not CTX-M?

5. Mention in discussion regarding the gryB and parC prevalence in comparison to your findings both in India and globally

6. Grammatical corrections needed in the introduction and discussion part.

7. Conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned.

8. Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned.

9. Ethical approval to be mentioned.

Reviewer 3:- A few minor edits are needed, as indicated in the reviewed file.

The study has been carried out systematically and study design and analysis have been done appropriately. The results have been delineated very systemically and presented appropriately. The study highlights the importance emerging resistance and emphasizes the evolving resistance pattern over a nine-year period from 2011 to 2019. The authors have carried out the study systematically, clearly delineated the findings from the testing and emphasize the emerging resistance patterns.

Regards,

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,

Sivanantham Krishnamoorthi

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Stuart Blacksell

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Dear Author,

The manuscript requires minor modification as suggested below.

Reviewer 1:- No changes suggested

The study is well planned and all methods followed are standard. This is a retrospective analysis, they have achieved all the objectives. The results are in line with the analysis plan with all the results well depicted and clearly stated. The conclusions are supported by the data presented. The authors have addressed public helath as well as importance of antibioc resistance surveillance emphasizing development of treatment guidelines. This is a retrospective analysis which is well planned. The study highlights the importance of evolving antibiotic resistance with clonal diversity.

Reviewer 2:- Minor Revision

The authors retrospectively analysed the occurrence, characteristics, and antimicrobial resistance patterns of various Shigella serotypes isolated from patients with acute diarrhea of the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Kolkata from 2011–2019.

The following are the minor comments to be included by the authors:

Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned.

The conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned.

1. Line 110: Mention the references of studies that have been made across the world to track the epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Shigella spp.

2. Mention the stool macroscropy characteristics (bloody diarrhoea/ watery diarrhoea)

3. Whether all Shigella spp. were typable or few non-typable strains were there.

4. Please mention why during AMR gene detection for β-lactamase genes blaOXA and blaTEM was choosed and not CTX-M?

5. Mention in discussion regarding the gryB and parC prevalence in comparison to your findings both in India and globally

6. Grammatical corrections needed in the introduction and discussion part.

7. Conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned.

8. Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned.

9. Ethical approval to be mentioned.

Reviewer 3:- A few minor edits are needed, as indicated in the reviewed file.

The study has been carried out systematically and study design and analysis have been done appropriately. The results have been delineated very systemically and presented appropriately. The study highlights the importance emerging resistance and emphasizes the evolving resistance pattern over a nine-year period from 2011 to 2019. The authors have carried out the study systematically, clearly delineated the findings from the testing and emphasize the emerging resistance patterns.

Regards,

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 study is well planned and all methods followed are standard. This is a retrospective analysis, they have achieved all the objectives.

Reviewer #2: Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned

Reviewer #3: The study has been carried out systematically and study design and analysis have been done appropriately

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

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 in line with the analysis plan with all the results well depicted and clearly stated.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: The results have been delineated very systemically and presented appropriately.

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

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 conclusions are supported by the data presented. The authors have addressed public helath as well as importance of antibioc resistance surveillance emphasizing development of treatment guidelines.

Reviewer #2: Conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned

Reviewer #3: The study highlights the importance emerging resistance and emphasizes the evolving resistance pattern over a nine-year period from 2011 to 2019

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

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: No changes suggested

Reviewer #2: Minor Revision

Reviewer #3: Table 1 can be reduced in size to fit in

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

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: This is a retrospective analysis which is well planned. The study highlights the importance of evolving antibiotic resistance with clonal diversity.

Reviewer #2: The authors retrospectively analysed the occurrence, characteristics, and antimicrobial resistance patterns of various Shigella serotypes isolated from patients with acute diarrhea of the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Kolkata from 2011–2019.

The following are the minor comments to be included by the authors:

1. Line 110: Mention the references of studies that have been made across the world to track the epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Shigella spp.

2. Mention the stool macroscropy characteristics (bloody diarrhoea/ watery diarrhoea)

3. Whether all Shigella spp. were typable or few non-typable strains were there.

4. Please mention why during AMR gene detection for β-lactamase genes blaOXA and blaTEM was choosed and not CTX-M?

5. Mention in discussion regarding the gryB and Par C prevalence in comparison to your findings both in India and globally

6. Grammatical corrections needed in the introduction and discussion part.

7. Conclusion and limitation of the study, if any to be mentioned.

8. Study design, statistical analysis method and ethical approval to be mentioned.

Reviewer #3: The authors have carried out the study systematically, clearly delineated the findings from the testing and emphasize the emerging resistance patterns

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

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: Yes: Dr Kamran Zaman

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: PNTD-D-23-01227_r.pdf

Dear Dr. Mukhopadhyay,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Prevalence and changing antimicrobial resistance profiles of Shigella spp. isolated from diarrheal patients in Kolkata during 2011-2019' 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,

Sivanantham Krishnamoorthi

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Stuart Blacksell

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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