[PLoS ONE removes from comments all tabs and extra spaces, rendering unreadable tables prepared with spaces and tabs. This retry is with hyphens instead of tabs.]


Table 3. Summary of PRV results from Oweekeno Lake, 2014 – 2016.

________________________________________________
Group---------------Morton et al. 2017------Hrushowy thesis
________________________________________________
Sockeye adults----------2/74 = 2.7%-----------2/97 = 2.1%
Sockeye juveniles------6/270 = 2.2%--------12/294 = 4.1%
Chinook-------------------1/41 = 2.4%-----------1/41 = 2.4%
Cutthroat Trout---------2/19 = 11%
Dolly Varden-------------1/10 = 10%
Trout--------------------------------------------------3/49 = 6.1%
________________________________________________

Morton et al. (2017, supplementary Table 1) - https://doi.org/10.1371/j...
Hrushowy thesis - https://theses.lib.sfu.ca...

File: <journal.pone.0188793.s001> [from the original publication] In this file, the years of sampling for the Oweekeno Lake region (2014, 2015, and 2016) and PRV test results (e.g., 1/41 = 2.4% Chinook salmon positive) seem similar to the PRV test results reported in the master’s thesis of coauthor Hrushowy (see Table 3; e.g., 1/41 = 2.4% Chinook salmon positive).
Source: https://theses.lib.sfu.ca...

1. Pages 106 and 107 of the Hrushowy thesis describe ISAV and SAV results for several of the fish tested for PRV, but the exact numbers are not always clear.

2. If these are the same fish as reported in the original paper (Morton et al. 2017), what is the reason that the PRV results were included in Morton et al. (2017) but not the ISAV or SAV results?

3. What are the reasons for differences in reported methods for PRV detection? How were Ct values between 40.1 and 45 handled?

---A. The Hrushowy thesis (p. 103) describes PRV as, “Samples with Ct values below 40 and with an exponential amplification curve were considered positive. Ct values between 40.1 and 45 were considered tentative negatives, and a sample was deemed negative if there was no amplification of product (resulting in no Ct value) (Kibenge et al. 2013).”

---B. The Correction describes PRV as, “The Ct values in this study were automatically reported by the real-time instrument (LC 480, Roche), which reported Ct values above 40 as 0. Thus, any samples generating Ct values that were > 40 were designated as negative along with samples for which no Ct value was generated.”

Submitted by:
Gary D. Marty
Fish Pathologist
Animal Health Centre
Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries
1767 Angus Campbell Rd.
Abbotsford, BC, V3G 2M3
778-666-0578
Gary.Marty@gov.bc.ca

Sonja M. Saksida
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Health Management
Atlantic Veterinary College, UPEI
Ssaksida@upei.ca