Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 3, 2020
Decision Letter - Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, Editor

PONE-D-20-27397

Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zuckerman,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: Yes

**********

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: The paper entitled "Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel" presents the molecular epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 cases over time in selected portions of Israel. Overall, the methods and analysis conducted are fairly straightforward and properly used. The findings add to the growing picture of different variant emergence globally, and would be of interest to the field.

However, the figures of the paper are cut off, so it is difficult to completely analyze the findings of the paper. I also believe that the authors could expand a little more in the discussion in terms of comparison of the clade trends observed in the isolates they analyze with other countries, especially those near Israel. Maybe the authors have included it, but a figure more directly associating clade prevalence as a function of time course of the outbreak in Israel would be of value. Finally , I think some minor typos and odd phrasing in places can be corrected, though this would normally be done by a copy editor as they are minor. Overall, I think this would normally be something I would recommend "Minor Revisions" for, but I would encourage the authors to resubmit/clear the figures in full form (not cut off) with the Editor.

Reviewer #2: the paper is clearly written and well organized , the results and figures are comprehensive and helpful, please consider the highlights in the attached file for the minor reversions and justifications for questions.

finally: I have a question about the period of sampling; why you did not conduct your research on samples till (August for example) ? to cover wide range of samples to be more comprehensive about the situation.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohamed Samy Abousenna

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-27397_reviewed.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer #1: The paper entitled "Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel" presents the molecular epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 cases over time in selected portions of Israel. Overall, the methods and analysis conducted are fairly straightforward and properly used. The findings add to the growing picture of different variant emergence globally, and would be of interest to the field.

However, the figures of the paper are cut off, so it is difficult to completely analyze the findings of the paper.

--> The figures will be re-submitted properly.

I also believe that the authors could expand a little more in the discussion in terms of comparison of the clade trends observed in the isolates they analyze with other countries, especially those near Israel.

--> We thank the reviewer for this comment. We added information regarding dominant clades similar to Israel from additional European countries (line #263). Europe and the USA are relevant to Israel in terms of viral transmission due to travel patterns, more than countries bordering with Israel, and this is the reason those were included. In addition, the paucity of data available for countries near Israel does not allow drawing clear conclusions.

Maybe the authors have included it, but a figure more directly associating clade prevalence as a function of time course of the outbreak in Israel would be of value.

--> This information is shown in Figure 2A.

Finally, I think some minor typos and odd phrasing in places can be corrected, though this would normally be done by a copy editor as they are minor.

--> We have thoroughly gone over the manuscript again to correct any typos and phrasing.

Overall, I think this would normally be something I would recommend "Minor Revisions" for, but I would encourage the authors to resubmit/clear the figures in full form (not cut off) with the Editor.

Reviewer #2: the paper is clearly written and well organized, the results and figures are comprehensive and helpful, please consider the highlights in the attached file for the minor reversions and justifications for questions.

--> We thank the reviewer for these comments. Below are our answers to the comments highlighted in the manuscript:

1. Page #1:

title – changed to “Genomic variation and epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel” as the reviewer suggested.

Author roles:

Conceptualization, N.S.Z and M.M; Methodology, N.S.Z, E.B, Y.D and O.E; Validation, E.B and O.E; Formal analysis, N.S.Z, E.B and Y.D; Investigation, N.S.Z and E.B; Data curation, N.S.Z, R.P and M.M; Writing – original draft, N.S.Z; Writing – review and editing, N.S.Z, E.M, D.S, O.M and M.M; Visualization, N.S.Z; Supervision, N.S.Z, E.M, O.M and M.M; Project administration, N.S.Z, O.M and M.M.

2. Page #2:

Abstract – the number of samples mentioned indicates the samples that were sequenced by us and described in the manuscript. Other samples included are Israeli-based samples taken from GISAID (publically available database). This is mentioned in the abstract: “with additional sequences identified Israel available in public databases”.

In addition, we added the number of sequences we utilized from GISAID in the methods section (line 87).

3. Page #4:

Materials and methods: we added the type of samples – nasal-pharyngeal (line 86).

PCR: term was changed to real time PCR (RT-PCR). In our experience, the maximum Ct value that can be sequenced using the methodology described (targeted SARS-CoV-2 sequencing using the Artic primers) is ~35.

4. Page #7:

Results: all methods-related duplicate information was deleted.

finally: I have a question about the period of sampling; why you did not conduct your research on samples till (August for example)? to cover wide range of samples to be more comprehensive about the situation.

--> The purpose of the manuscript, that was written back in June, was to describe the origin of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel and its initial spread (the “first wave”). This first wave had declined in May 2020, and a “second” wave started in July and is still ongoing. We are currently sequencing samples from that time-period to characterize the second wave.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Yury E Khudyakov, Editor

Genomic variation and epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel

PONE-D-20-27397R1

Dear Dr. Zuckerman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: I thank the authors for addressing my comments--the manuscript looks great! They pretty much addressed everything I had, though one more read-through for phrasing would be good.

Reviewer #2: Please address the required CT value at materials and methods, as you explained in your response to cooments

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohamed Samy Abousenna

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yury E Khudyakov, Editor

PONE-D-20-27397R1

Genomic variation and epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 importation and early circulation in Israel

Dear Dr. Zuckerman:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yury E Khudyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .