Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Mapping the distribution of sandflies and sandfly-associated pathogens in China" 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,

Luc E. Coffeng, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Morrison

Section 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The objectives and study design look fine. The clarity, appropriateness and size of the population under study are based largely on those from previously accepted publications. Sophisticated and advanced statistical programs were used for data analysis to support the conclusions. There are no ethical or regulatory concerns.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: There are ample and detailed descriptions presented according to analysis plan. For the most part, results are amply presented in some detail supported by figures with reasonable clarity.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The data presented are in support of conclusions for the most part Some clear limitations of the analysis were listed and described. The potential applications of the approaches were stated with relevance to public health.

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

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 Response)

Reviewer #2: The Abstract needs attention to make sure that it covers all the essential points of the work presented. For example, 6 known SAPs (sand fly-associated pathogens) were mentioned in the text, but only Leishmania appeared in the abstract.

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

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 study comprehensively investigates the distribution of sandflies and sandfly-associated pathogens (SAPs) in China, as well as the incidence risk of human visceral leishmaniasis (VL). By analyzing literature data from 1940 to 2022 and surveillance data from 2014 to 2018, the research maps out the distribution of sandfly species and identifies ecological drivers using machine learning techniques. The findings indicate a significant underestimation of current sandfly distribution and VL risk, and predicted their future distribution and risk under three scenarios of climate and socioeconomic changes. The study highlights the need for enhanced surveillance and field investigations, particularly in regions where VL risk is projected to persist or increase amidst changing climate and socioeconomic scenarios. Overall, I think the paper offers valuable insights into an important area of neglected tropical diseases. I have several general comments:

1. The first paragraph of the Introduction is too general; please reshape the text to improve readability. Additionally, in the second paragraph of the Introduction, please introduce the situation of sandfly-associated pathogens and visceral leishmaniasis in China.

2. In both Fig. 3 a-c, the provinces of Qinghai and Yunnan are not mentioned. I don’t quite understand why the VL annual incidence predicted by the model from 2014 to 2018 would lead to Qinghai and Yunnan becoming new endemic provinces. Please provide more detailed interpretation of this result. Furthermore, please clarify the meaning of the white color in the legend of Fig 3-4. For instance, in Fig 4 a-d, the white blocks are described as “0” or “no risk”. Is this because the reported data is actually zero, or because there is no data available? If the reported data for these provinces is zero, please clarify. If it is because there is no data available, the description is incorrect.

3. This is a good piece of work, but I believe the discussion section does not fully illustrate on the significance of this study. For example, in lines 525-526, the authors wrote, “Moreover, the expansion risk is greatest in the SSP585 scenario compared to the SSP126 and SSP245 scenarios.” This is not surprising because SSP585 inherently represents a high-emission scenario with a fossil-fuel intensive pathway. Currently, there is not enough discussion on the differences in results under different scenarios and the significance of conducting this analysis. I believe the authors should reorganize the discussion section to highlight the universal value of this study.

Specific Comments

• Some of the keywords are too general; please use more appropriate terms.

• Lines 125-126: Please clearly state what the final selection of 8 bioclimatic variables is.

• Lines 340: Should it be six provinces instead of seven provinces?

• Lines 408-410: The description of the trend in VL incidence is not accurate. Due to the inconsistent trends in VL incidence under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios and time periods, please clarify which specific scenario and time period the changes are based on.

• Lines 530-531: The description here is repetitive compared to lines 527-528.

• Please reorganize the conclusion section. It seems too vague and does not highlight the key points of this study.

• Please carefully review the format of the references, some of which is not consistent.

Reviewer #2: (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

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.

Dear Dr. Liu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Mapping the distribution of sandflies and sandfly-associated pathogens in China' 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,

Luc E. Coffeng, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Morrison

Section 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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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 author has well addressed my concerns.

**********

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