Dear Dr. Alhassan,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Grenadian cats as potential reservoir for Leptospira" 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. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The authors must improve clarity regarding the significance of their estimated prevalence results in comparison to other studies and areas of the world by contextualizing the techniques used in this study versus the referenced studies that are used for comparison, both in terms of molecular and serological techniques and also in terms of the demographics of the cohort samples used to estimate prevalence. The authors should be clearer about the limited inferences possible from a serological test in this study which has not been adequately validated for cats. The authors should also consider whether the age of the cats trapped in this study may have biased the overall results obtained (i.e., 82% of the 150 cats were 1yo or younger). The authors could comment on whether this trapped cohort of cats can be considered representative of a typical (demographic profile of a) feral cat population in Grenada or other Caribbean islands. Furthermore, the authors should also extend further consideration to whether the small Indian mongoose in Grenada may also have an important role in Leptospira transmission (perhaps in addition to bats), given past and recent reports of association with this host in Grenada and US Virgin Islands (i.e., 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009859 and 10.1016/0035-9203(76)90008-0).

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Gilbert

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: Kalasi et al have compiled a useful set of experiments to assess the prevalence of Leptospira infection in feral Grenadian cats. This manuscript is well organized and clearly written. The introduction, background and methodology are reasonable and very well discussed given the premise of the paper and the importance of the research topic. The figures and tables included in this manuscript are comprehensive, helpful, and well explained. The sample size used in the study (n=150) is sufficient and appropriate to address the hypothesis being tested and the authors have demonstrated a high level of ethical and professional responsibility to follow the inclusion/exclusion criteria for subjects in the study of interest.

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? could be improved

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? should be improved. the results must be better contextualized.

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? no

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

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 of this paper were clearly presented, and the statistical analysis used was correct and unbiased. The figures and tables included in this manuscript are comprehensive, helpful, and well explained.

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? could be improved

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

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

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 authors provided a comprehensive conclusion for the problem of interest (prevalence of Leptospira infection in feral Grenadian cats) and for the data presented. They also clearly discussed the limitations of the study and provided very reasonable and acceptable explanations for these limitations. Furthermore, the authors highlighted the novelty of this study in the light of the limited information available for Leptospira , especially zoonotic serovars, exposure and or active infection in feral Grenadian cats and the subsequent public health significance of this problem.

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Could be improved

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? NO

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? Should be improved.

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

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: The following suggested minor wording, grammatical or font modifications are meant to enhance the completeness of this manuscript:

line 32: I recommend changing the word "confirm" to "suggest"

line 112: I recommend starting a new sentence with the word "Furthermore"

line 201: I recommend changing the word "Then" to "Next" to start the sentence

line 213: reference (62) needs to be unbold

line 299: " La Scola et al. (63) need to be unbold

line 352: I recommend changing the word "Lepto" to "Leptospira" and have it italicized

line 353: the dot (.) after "Furthermore," needs to be removed.

Otherwise very well written manuscript and an important study that highlights the possible significance of Leptospira infection among feral cats in the island of Grenada!

Reviewer #2: (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: Although the rate/prevalence of Leptospira detection in serum or shedding in urine, through detection of Leptospira genomic contents or measuring of anti-Leptospira antibodies, was relatively low in the subjects involved in this study, the findings clearly suggest that feral Grenadian cats included in this study are either have been exposed or are actively infected with different Leptospira serovars. These findings are novel for the cat populations in Grenada and raise critical questions regarding the role of feral cat population in the spread and transmission of Leptospira infection on the island and the subsequent zoonotic and public health significance of the likelihood and regular interaction between humans and Leptospira-reservoir cats compared to the uncommon interactions between human and several other Leptospira reservoirs such as bats and rodents.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors and Editors,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript.

This study describe the possibility that Grenadian cat population may be a reservoir host for zoonotic Leptospira on the island and can be a source of leptospirosis.

General comments: The study aims to characterize the circulation of Leptospira among stray cats in a selected area of Grenada. The animals sampled were very young, which may have resulted in a shorter period of exposure to the pathogen than the average cat's life. Additionally, a serological screening test was used that is not validated for use in cats. When comparing the prevalence of the pathogen in different countries, it is important to consider the diagnostic methods used and other relevant variables. In the following paragraph, I have provided some suggestions and would appreciate a prompt response. If there are any insurmountable obstacles, a 'study limitations' paragraph must be included.

It is also necessary to contextualize the statements by quoting bibliographical references and appropriate citations. Additionally, please ensure correct grammar, punctuation, and proper formatting when indicating the names of the genera and species of microorganisms. Please check all the document for using the correct form (italics) in idicating the genus of the bacteria. Although the writer is fluent in English, revisions are required for form, grammar, and typos.

Overall recomendation: Maior revision required

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

Abstract

Please check for typos. In addition, you state you had performed the molecular analysis on serum samples.. Is that correct?

Introduction

Line 118- …: I would suggest contextualising the role of the cat as a possible reservoir or as an asymptomatic carrier (difference in epidemiological role). What may be the source of exposure (predatory habits, local wildlife and synanthropy, stray and wild animal population density)?

M&M and Results:

Could selecting young animals (median age 1 y/o) be a limitation of the study? The exposure time to the pathogen may not be representative of the general stray cat population. How can you address this bias?

Line 167: please also state the drugs commercial name, manufacturer and country, as per author guidelines.

Line 197: Which modification?

Line 229: The assessment of serological positivity in cats performed with an antibody immunochromatographic test for dogs could produce inaccurate results. Is it possible that sera could be tested with a more sensitive and specific method (MAT)?

Discussion:

Lines 310-…: Please discuss your results by contextualizing the techniques used by previous studies, both in terms of molecular and serological techniques.

Line 339-340: Disease stage and Leptospira elimination detected by PCR, should be discussed with a view to characterizing a possible carrier or reservoir

Are there any published studies on Leptospira positivity in bats in Grenada? Are there any ecological studies that justify scenario 2? the bibliography needs to be implemented.

It is not clear to me whether the cats were owned (so informed consent from the owner was required) or were strays/feral.

A legend for the size of the population of cats enrolled in the study must be added to Figure 1.

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-24-00107_reviewer_2024v1 REPORT1.pdf

Dear Alhassan,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Grenadian cats as potential reservoir for Leptospira" 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. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The authors have addressed some of the prior comments, but several critical and additional concerns remain in need of clarity. The authors should be clearer up front with referenced criteria that are used to determine whether a domestic or wild animals is a reservoir for Leptospira. The authors should be clearer about the procedure used to age cats, i.e., what were the units of estimation? The 95% confidence intervals around estimated proportions must be provided throughout the paper for necessary context, especially when making comparisons to other studies. The authors must improve clarity regarding the significance of their estimated prevalence results in comparison to other studies and areas of the world by contextualizing the techniques used in this study versus the referenced studies that are used for comparison, both in terms of molecular and serological techniques and also in terms of the demographics of the cohort samples used to estimate prevalence. It remains unclear why an expected prevalence of 12% among the cats in the population was selected. It is necessary to contextualize the choice and justify the expected population size.

The description of the extraction methods, processing of Leptospira DNA from serum remains inadequate. in addition, it is reported that potentially unsuitable extraction kits were used and the result of the serum PCR is poorly described. The authors are recommended to remove this part or contextualize the use of this approach to a gold standard diagnostic method.

 We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Gilbert

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: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? no

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? The role of the cats as Leptospira reservoir is poorly contextualised to ecological dynamics and does not relate to a clinical and temporal window of urinary excretion of pathogenic leptospires by stray cats. it is possible that these infected individuals, should they survive infection, have intermittent excretion due to persistence of leptospires in the renal tubules. this hypothesis has not been evaluated or considered.

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? The selected animals are very young, reasonably they may have been less exposed to the pathogen. On the other hand, the possibility that they are not perfectly immunocompetent individuals and may be more susceptible to Leptospira infections is a hypothesis that has not been considered

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? It is unclear why an expected prevalence of 12% among the cats in the population was selected. It is necessary to contextualise the choice and justify the expected population size

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? --

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? -- - The study was conducted according to the guidelines approved by the Institutional Animal Care

and Use committee of St. George’s University (IACUC #18016-R dated November 9th 406 , 2018).

DNA extraction and PCR analysis : the description of the extraction methods, processing of Leptospira DNA from serum is inadequate. in addition, it is reported that unsuitable extraction kits (VIRAL) were used and the result of the serum PCR is not even described. I suggest removing this part or contextualising the use of serum by combining two serological methods (ELISA) and a gold standard method (MAT)

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

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: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? YES, but I firmly suggest to remove the serum samples molecular analysis.

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? YES, but I firmly suggest to remove the serum samples molecular analysis.

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

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

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: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? yes

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? yes

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

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: MAJOR REVISION

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors and Editors,

I feel the manuscript could be improved with a few adjustments. I have made some comments in the specific paragraphs which I hope you will find helpful.

It might also be worth checking for typing errors.

and proper formatting when indicating the names of the genera and species of microorganisms. Please check all the document for using the correct form (italics) in idicating the genus of the bacteria.

I would be happy to review further versions of the manuscript

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

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

Dear Alhassan,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Grenadian cats as potential reservoir for Leptospira" 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Gilbert

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 #2: M&M and Results:

Line 240: Please specify which values you considered statistically significant. Please indicate the technic characteristics of the statistic program used.

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

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 #2: M&M and Results:

Line 240: Please specify which values you considered statistically significant. Please indicate the technic characteristics of the statistic program used.

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

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 #2: Conclusion:

Line 359: It would appear that there is no evidence to suggest that the cat in question poses a direct risk of infection to humans. Indeed, recent literature would seem to indicate that with regard to pathogenic leptospires (see list in various publications), companion animals (dogs, cats in particular) may act as epidemiological sentinels, given that the disease is considered to be an environmental disease. This sentence must be revised (“It is important to educate the public about the potential risk of exposure to Leptospira via feral cats.”)

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

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 #2: (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 #2: Dear Authors and Editors,

I am grateful for the chance to revise the manuscript once more.

The manuscript has been revised and improved. A few comments and suggestions for further enhancements remain.

Overall recomendation: Minor revision required

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

Introduction

Line 110: Please add more updated bibliography (2, 18, 20, 21, 22, ..)

Line 118- “Hence cats serve as a source of infection and a environmental sentinel for Leptospira (20).”

Line 128: typing errors

M&M and Results:

Line 240: Please specify which values you considered statistically significant. Please indicate the technic characteristics of the statistic program used.

Conclusion:

Line 359: It would appear that there is no evidence to suggest that the cat in question poses a direct risk of infection to humans. Indeed, recent literature would seem to indicate that with regard to pathogenic leptospires (see list in various publications), companion animals (dogs, cats in particular) may act as epidemiological sentinels, given that the disease is considered to be an environmental disease. This sentence must be revised (“It is important to educate the public about the potential risk of exposure to Leptospira via feral cats.”)

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

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

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-24-00107_reviewer_2024v2 REPORT - Copia.docx.pdf

Dear Alhassan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Grenadian cats as potential reservoir for Leptospira' 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Gilbert

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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