Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana

Riley Thompson; Hayley Adams; Agricola Odoi; Melissa Kennedy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220593

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 16, 2019
30 Aug 2019 Decision Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor PONE-D-19-20072 Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana PLOS ONE Dear Melissa Kennedy Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One Your manuscript was reviewed by two reviewers who made some good useful suggestions to improve it Please write a detailed response to reviewers when modifying your document to make their lives a bit easier. I look forward to reading the modified manuscript Best of luck with your modifications Thanks Simon ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding participant consent from the animals owners. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 4. In your Methods, please state where the participants were recruited for your study. 5. In your Methods, please state the volume of the blood samples collected for use in your study. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Editor I have read through the MS entitled ’Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana’ sent to me for review. The MS is technically sound and the information contributes to the understanding of disease dynamics in domestic dog population in northern Botswana and by implication the disease condition in the wild felid and canid populations. However, there are some aspect of the study that needs to be addressed in order to enhance the clarity of the paper and improve on its quality in general. My comments to the authors is attached I recommend moderate revision of the manuscript before it can accepted for publication. Thank you Joshua Kamani Reviewer #2: Ms. No. PONE-D-19-20072 Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana Plos one ________________________________________________________ This study is a survey on the main viral, bacterial and parasitic pathogens in domestic dogs living in an area that has been little investigated such as the Botswana. It is interesting to use domestic dogs as sentinels for infectious disease exposure in wildlife. However, this study's objectives are not clearly stated and the methods are incomplete and, at times, difficult to follow. The epidemiologic study was completely descriptive. In addition, sampling methods are unclear. It would be optimal to better specify the age of the dogs examined and how age was determined. The withdrawal period is so short that I don't think it can really influence the positivity differences. I would eliminate it. The discussion should be re-evaluated with greater attention and the hypotheses on the role of ticks in the transmission of some pathogens rewritten, please. I would reduce the tables to only one. Tables 1 and 2 show 232 dogs analyzed while 3 and 4 show 233 dogs, please check the tables. References Check the bibliographic references Insert in italic the different pathogens ****** 6. 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: Yes: Joshua Kamani Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] 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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Result for PONE.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r001
Revision 1
15 Oct 2019 Author Response Reviewers’ comments: Laboratory methods – given that the only techniques used involved ELISA kits per manufacturers’ recommendation, none were deposited. The style requirements were reviewed. Owners’ verbal consent for participation, the locale of participants, and the volume of blood collected were addressed in the text. Reviewer #1: The short title was modified per the reviewer’s recommendations. The italics for “spp.” designations were removed. “total of” was removed from the sentence in line 37. The issue of tick infestation and control were addressed in the text Lines 60-61 and line 64 were modified per the reviewer’s recommendations. The tick vector for each organism was included. Rephrasing of lines 87-89 was made. As stated in the manuscript, rabies was not assessed because of unknown vaccination status for rabies, and the lack of a point-of-care assay for this assessment. The various aspects of demographic data were addressed in the text. The use of whole blood was addressed The various properties of the kits were addressed. Color change evaluation was addressed. Tables were condensed. Lines 202-206 were modified per the reviewer’s recommendation. The reference corrections were made. Reviewer #2: The hypothesis, objectives and methods were clarified. Demographic data was addressed. The discussion section was adjusted. Tables were reduced: Reviewer Comment Line 134: is it 232 or 233? Response The total sample size was 233. However, there was one missing data point for test results of the following pathogens: Anaplasma spp., B.burgdorferi and D.immitis. Due to that missing data, these pathogens had 232 instead of 233. The rest of the pathogens did not have missing data and therefore had a total of 233. These explanations have been added as footnotes on tables 2, 3a and 3b Reviewer Comment Table 2: I am not sure the authors explained why there are two populations; 232 233 being tested for different pathogens. Response There is only one population of dogs. However, as explained above there was there was one missing data point for test results for Anaplasma spp., B.burgdorferi and D.immitis. Therefore these pathogens had data for only 232 dogs instead of 233 that the rest of the pathogen had. Reviewer Comment Table 3: The table can be presented in a better format without having to repeat the variables in columns 1 and 2 for the two pathogens. Why are some variables in column 1 in italics? (see throughout the tables) Response We thank the reviewer for their suggestion on improving the presentation of our results. As per the suggestion, tables 3, 4 and 5 have now been combined into Table 3. However, since the new Table 3 cannot fit on one page, it has been split into Table 3a and Table 3b. This change has allowed us to stop repeating information from column 1. However, we have retained column 2 because the data changes between pathogens depending on whether there was missing data or not. Reviewer Comment Tables 4 and 5 should be merged similar to comments made for table 3 to avoid duplicating the variables in columns 1 and 2. Response: As stated above tables 3, 4 and 5 have not been combined into Table 3. Since the Table 3 cannot fit on one page, it has been split into Table 3a and Table 3b. This change has allowed us to stop repeating information from column 1. However, we have retained column 2 because the data changes between pathogens depending on whether there was missing data or not. Reviewer Comment Line 240-41: What could influence the significant association of CDV with June than July? The study duration of 2 months to me is too short to make any meaningful deduction other than chance findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this association and seeking an explanation. Unfortunately, this being a sero-survey, the scope of the study was limited and so we were not able to investigate this association further. However, due to the very strong association (OR = 7.8; p=0.002), it is unlikely to be due to chance. Suffice it to say that future studies will need to investigate this association further. We have added this comment in the manuscript. Reference corrections were made. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r002
19 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor PONE-D-19-20072R1 Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana PLOS ONE Dear Melissa Kennedy Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note that the modifications here are very minor. ============================== Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One It has again been reviewed by two expert reviewers, and they have come back with some very minor typographical and grammatical comments If you can address these comments, then I can recommend the article for publication Please do not feel that you need to write a full rebuttal to reviewers comments. Merely a line saying that all comments were addressed, and a comment on which ones were not and why. Wishing you the best of luck with your minor revisions Thanks Simon ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: I found this manuscript very interesting, and current, particularly with the sad plight of the African wild dog. It is an interesting way of looking at potential disease risk to these animals. As this is a second submission, I have made mainly minor comments to the manuscript as I think it is well written and interesting. Line 36- numbers under 10 should be written in full Line 63- et al., should be in italics throughout as it is Latin Line 70- would serious illness and/or death maybe be better as morbidity and mortality? Line 80- would cross species transmission sound better? Line 105- following manufacturers instructions may sound better, or as per manufacturers instructions Line 108- you can shorten B. burgdorferi and D. immitis as you have already mentioned them in full. The only time it needs to be in full after the first time is at the start of a sentence. Please modify throughout Line 114- comma after CPV Line 125- you mention age distribution, but there is 0.3% missing. Where does that animal fit? Tables may look better center aligned Table 2. Why is there a difference in number tested for Anaplasma, Borrelia and Dinofilaria compared to the others? I don’t remember reading that in the text anywhere Line 147- in the final what? It didn’t make sense to me Line 153- comma after (Table 5) Line 161- comma after MAWS Table 3, 4 and 5- Is it possible to fill in some of the gaps (even a hyphen may help), or merge cells? Line 187-190- this didn’t quite read correctly, but I cant work out how to reword it. Maybe have a look at it and see if you could modify it? Line 196- wild doesn’t need capitalising Line 197- comma after 2009 Line 199 – I think this is the first mention of E. canis so it needs to be in full Line 201- Avoid using us, we, our etc in scientific writing Line 203- change was to were Line 218- E. ewingii needs to be in full as it’s the first mention of it Line 219- Ehrlichia needs capitalising Line 223- had a lower prevalence Line 241- comma after month Line 250- B. burgdorferi needs to be in full as it’s the start of a sentence Reference 10- names don’t need capitalising ****** 7. 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: None Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] 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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Cor PONE-D-19-20072 R1.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Cor PONE Rev 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r003
Revision 2
25 Nov 2019 Author Response Minor revisions were addressed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (minor revisions).doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r004
23 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana PONE-D-19-20072R2 Dear Dr.Kennedy We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Many thanks for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS One As you have addressed all the comments (thank you) I have recommended the manuscript for publication I wish you all the best for your future research Many thanks Simon Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r005
Formally Accepted
30 Dec 2019 Acceptance Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor PONE-D-19-20072R2 Seroprevalence of viral and vector-borne bacterial pathogens in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in northern Botswana Dear Dr. Kennedy: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Simon Russell Clegg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220593.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .