Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: A common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C

L. T. Ranaweera; W. W. M. U. K. Wijesundara; H. S. M. Jayarathne; N. J. Knowles; J. Wadsworth; A. Gray; A. M. J. B. Adikari; C. K. Weebadde; S. D. S. S. Sooriyapathirana

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227126

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 4, 2019
7 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Douglas Gladue, Editor PONE-D-19-15471 Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Sooriyapathirana, 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. The reviewer brings up some important points that need to be addressed, please address the comments and submit a manuscript with track changes on along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by November 28, 2019. 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, Douglas Gladue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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: The paper “Transboundary movements of foot-and Mouth disease from India to Sri Lankan: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C” present the sequencing data of foot-and Mouth disease virus VP1 region in order to evaluate the phylodynamics of serotypes O and C. The data present in this study seems to be interesting in knowing the movement of FMD from the Indian subcontinent to Sri Lanka. Authors extended their study to understanding of genetic variability associated with FMDV VP 1 region to emphasize the effects of this virus on cattle and its impact on associated product movement into Sri Lanka. During his study authors are mainly focused on retrieving literature data on FMDV and combined several new sequences of serotype C. Majority of those sequences are included Sri Lankan and Indian virus sequences. To infer thee evolutionary and transboundary aspects they used few major software and applications, while the model-based approach is used to detect possible recombination. However, some issues related to the article should be solved. Present study authors indicated that they have sequenced viral samples from serotype C. However they haven’t justified why they used only serotype C instead of using both serotypes O and C. Describing of the sample selection procedure is unclear. Authors are stated that they have used already collected viral samples. But they were not clearly stated how the present study sample is selected. Original sample number and present study cohort selection should be clearly described in the method section. In the present study, authors are newly generated only t 27 sequences of serotype C. Hence clear understand of the sample numbers can justify the present study. Authors need to expand the description of the structure & phylogenetic significance of VP1 region since that is the major interest of their study. It will be informative that the authors can include the length of the PCR amplicons and the sequences they used to present study. Shorter the sequence length reduced the precision of the analysis. It is understandable if the authors may clearly indicate the number of sequences belongs to each dataset that they used to detect possible recombination events (From line #’s 221 to 224) Some of the references listed in the reference section are not aligned with the journal recommended “Vancouver” reference style Minor issues Reference style in some points of the introduction should be revised and corrected Eg: Line # 106: Reference list should be rearranged Improving written language style is recommended since some language parts of the article are unclear ****** 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: Dr Ruwandi Ranasinghe [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.r001
Revision 1
11 Nov 2019 Author Response November 11, 2019 Editor, PLOS ONE. Dear Editor, Rebuttal Letter Containing Comments and Answers for the manuscript titled “Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C” I wish to pay my sincere thanks for reviewing and taking necessary actions to review the earlier submitted manuscript titled “Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C”. I appreciate your valuable effort in this regard to point out areas to improve and strengths in our study which are helpful in improving the quality of the article. This article is of immense importance to the betterment of the Sri Lankan cattle industry. Therefore, with your valuable suggestions, we wish to provide convey our research findings to the FMD research community. Herewith I am sending the details of actions, answers and comments for each query indicated by the reviewers/editor. 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: Partly Answer: The suggested changes were included in revised form of the article. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Answer: Thank you for the comment. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? 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 Answer: Thank you for the comment. 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: No Answer: The article was edited to correct the language mistakes. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1 Comment 1: The data present in this study seems to be interesting in knowing the movement of FMD from the Indian subcontinent to Sri Lanka. Authors extended their study to understanding of genetic variability associated with FMDV VP 1 region to emphasize the effects of this virus on cattle and its impact on associated product movement into Sri Lanka. During his study authors are mainly focused on retrieving literature data on FMDV and combined several new sequences of serotype C. Majority of those sequences are included Sri Lankan and Indian virus sequences. To infer thee evolutionary and transboundary aspects they used few major software and applications, while the model-based approach is used to detect possible recombination. Answer: Thanks for identifying the importance and strengths of this work. Comment 2: However, some issues related to the article should be solved. Present study authors indicated that they have sequenced viral samples from serotype C. However, they haven’t justified why they used only serotype C instead of using both serotypes O and C. Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. I believe a clarification is needed for this question. We wanted to cover FMDV incursions associated with both serotype O and serotype C since those are the only reported serotypes to carry out an FMD outbreak situation in Sri Lanka. (Introduction: Lines 121-122, 149 -150). The sequence data for FMDV Serotype O viral samples collected in Sri Lanka were publicly available and included in the analysis (Materials and methods: lines 180 - 181). Although FMDV epidemic situations are reported for Serotype C, the sequence data were not publicly available. Thus, we collected and sequenced the Serotype C data, in order to collectively analyze the viral phylodynamic for each incursion, as we wished to present a completed and more robust scientific story. Comment 3: Describing of the sample selection procedure is unclear. Authors are stated that they have used already collected viral samples. But they were not clearly stated how the present study sample is selected. Original sample number and present study cohort selection should be clearly described in the method section. Answer: Thanks for identifying this. We have added “We sequenced the viral samples that were collected during the outbreak situations caused by FMDV serotype C in Sri Lanka, India and, a few associated countries”. Comment 4: In the present study, authors are newly generated only 27 sequences of serotype C. Hence a clear understand of the sample numbers can justify the present study. Answer: We used sequences of all the relevant FMDV serotype C isolates submitted WRLFMD by the sample collectors. The number of samples for serotype C was turned out be 27. There were no other relevant sequences of serotype C available to have a larger sample size. Comment 5: Authors need to expand the description of the structure & phylogenetic significance of VP1 region since that is the major interest of their study. Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. However, I believe the Paragraph 2 of the Introduction justifies the usage of VP1 genomic region and its importance in FMDV phylogenetics. Comment 6: It will be informative that the authors can include the length of the PCR amplicons and the sequences they used to present study. Shorter the sequence length reduced the precision of the analysis. Answer: Thank for pointing this out and making the valuable suggestion. We have remodified the S1 Table including the sequence-lengths. Comment 7: It is understandable if the authors may clearly indicate the number of sequences belongs to each dataset that they used to detect possible recombination events (From line #’s 221 to 224). Answer: Thank you for valuable suggestion. The text in the particular section is corrected accordingly as given below. “i) serotype C sequences from India and Sri Lanka (n= 15); ii) serotype C sequences from Sri Lanka and sequences of O/ME-SA/Srl-97 (n = 24) ; iii) serotype C sequences from Sri Lanka and sequences of O/ME-SA/Ind-2001d from Sri Lanka (n = 22); and iv) O/ME-SA/Ind-2001d sequences from Sri Lanka and India (n = 150)”. Comment 8: Some of the references listed in the reference section are not aligned with the journal recommended “Vancouver” reference style. Answer: Thanks for the comment and the references have been double checked to meet the journal style. Minor issues Comment: Reference style in some points of the introduction should be revised and corrected. Eg: Line # 106: Reference list should be rearranged. Answer: Thanks, corrected accordingly. Comment: Improving written language style is recommended since some language parts of the article are unclear. Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. The relevant changes have been made. Thank you very much for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you with the next step of the publication process. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.r002
5 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Douglas Gladue, Editor PONE-D-19-15471R1 Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Sooriyapathirana, 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 address the few minor comments listed below. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 19 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 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, Douglas Gladue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments: Please consider the following suggestions 1) Line # 157: Please indicates what are the "Nearby" Countries 2) Material and Method section: Better rephrase with Passive voice 3)Line # 182: Indicate which type of data set that you used 4)Line # 's 223- 226: Better indicate the individual sequence numbers for each country/Category 5)Line #: Duplication of "Viral" [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: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: Please consider the following suggestions 1) Line # 157: Please indicates what are the "Nearby" Countries 2) Material and Method section: Better rephrase with Passive voice 3)Line # 182: Indicate which type of data set that you used 4)Line # 's 223- 226: Better indicate the individual sequence numbers for each country/Category 5)Line #: Duplication of "Viral" ****** 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: Yes: Dr Ruwandi Ranasinghe [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.r003
Revision 2
6 Dec 2019 Author Response Prof. S.D.S.S. Sooriyapathirana Corresponding Author December 6, 2019 Editor PLoS ONE Dear Editor, Submission of the Revised Version of PONE-D-19-15471R1: Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C We wish to pay our sincere thanks for reviewing the manuscript. Herewith we explain the answers and activities for the queries made by Editor and Reviewer. Editor’s Comments (EC): EC1: 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. Answer: Thank you very much for the revisions and herewith we submit the revised version. EC2: Please address the few minor comments listed below. Please consider the following suggestions 1) Line # 157: Please indicates what are the "Nearby" Countries Answer: The ‘Nearby’ countries were included separately in the sentence. 2) Material and Method section: Better rephrase with Passive voice Answer: The Materials and Methods section was rephrased to passive voice. 3)Line # 182: Indicate which type of data set that you used Answer: VP1 sequence datasets were used. The sentence was amended to make it clear. 4)Line # 's 223- 226: Better indicate the individual sequence numbers for each country/Category Answer: We appreciate this comment. The no. of sequences for each country can be easily taken from S1 Table. If we prepare a summary, it would be like the Table given below. Therefore, under the editors permission we wish to keep the current form and guide the readers to S1 Table for sampling details. Country No. of sequences Argentina 12 Austria 1 Bangladesh 2 Belgium 3 Bhutan 2 Brazil 6 Denmark 1 Ethiopia 2 France 4 Germany 3 Greece 1 Hungary 1 India 108 Italy 1 Kenya 3 Kuwait 1 Nepal 5 Philipppines 1 Portugal 1 Saudi Arabia 2 Spain 2 Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 28 Switzerland 2 Uganda 1 United Kingdom 2 Uruguay 1 Tajikistan (USSR) 1 5)Line #: Duplication of “Viral” Answer: We guess the line # has to be 242. The sentence was modified to accommodate the correction. Reviewers' comments: 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: All comments have been addressed Answer: Thank you! 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: Yes Answer: Thank you! 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Answer: Thank you! 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: Yes Answer: Thank you! 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 Answer: The necessary corrections were made, and the Materials and Methods section was changed to passive voice. 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: Please consider the following suggestions 1) Line # 157: Please indicates what are the "Nearby" Countries 2) Material and Method section: Better rephrase with Passive voice 3)Line # 182: Indicate which type of data set that you used 4)Line # 's 223- 226: Better indicate the individual sequence numbers for each country/Category 5)Line #: Duplication of "Viral" Answer: All these suggestions were addressed before. 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: Yes: Dr Ruwandi Ranasinghe Answer: Thank you! We would also prefer to publish peer review history according to the journal guidelines. Again we wish to thank the Editor, Reviewer and PLoS ONE staff for your excellent service. I look forward to hearing back from you with the next step of publication. Thank you! Sincerely Prof. S.D.S.S. Sooriyapathirana Corresponding Author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.r004
13 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Douglas Gladue, Editor Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C PONE-D-19-15471R2 Dear Dr. Sooriyapathirana, 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, Douglas Gladue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Dec 2019 Acceptance Letter - Douglas Gladue, Editor PONE-D-19-15471R2 Transboundary movements of foot-and-mouth disease from India to Sri Lanka: a common pattern is shared by serotypes O and C Dear Dr. Sooriyapathirana: 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. Douglas Gladue Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227126.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 .