PONE-D-20-27928

TriatoDex, an electronic identification key to the Triatominae: development, description, and performance

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gurgel-Gonçalves,

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. We received feedback from reviewers and both were positive about your manuscript. At the same time, both raised very relevant points about specific aspects in the manuscript. In this way, I decided to characterize it as "major reviews", but I believe that the suggestions are not too complex to be addressed.

I look forward to a new version of the manuscript to continue the evaluation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 01/15/2021. 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,

Sergio N. Stampar, Dr.

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. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure* (delete as necessary) section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: H2J Comunicação & Marketing, Brasília, Brazil

(1) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

(2) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please respond by return email with an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement and we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[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: I Don't Know

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: Review Plos Triatodex

I have a few doubts on the importance of this manuscript, as listed below:

1-The manuscript brings the analysis of a very important technological tool for the Triatominae identification and the detailed statistical analysis checking the efficacy of the Triatodex App. Despite the nice presentation of the manuscript, I am not sure it is in the scope or interesting to be published in Plos one. Therefore, I am going to decline of presenting the final decision which I leave with the editorial team.

2-Another point is that the tool structure, tutorial, and the program itself are available on the internet since 2017 and I am not sure if this manuscript is going to complement any previous information already available in the web since 2017.

3-How important is the publication of the statistical analysis on the efficacy of the Triatominae identification tool? Its importance and efficiency are going to be proved or disapproved by the users themselves, assessing and using the App. Again, the final decision I am going to leave with the editors.

Please check the following links presenting the Triatodex in the internet since 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-M55EoWjg0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jqGNnkU5eU

https://blogdeparasitologia.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/aplicativo-facilita-a-identificacao-morfologica-de-triatomineos/

Finaly, this manuscript does not bring complementary information or bring crucial updates related to the App. Several other papers on Triatominae systematics and taxonomy could be included to enrich the knowledge of the more than 150 species now.

Some suggestions are listed below:

-Title should include further information such as: the Trypanosoma cruzi vectors, Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Reduviidae, Triatominae

-Additional references on Triatominae systematics and taxonomy should be added in order to complement the visual and summarized information for each of the listed species in the App.

Why just Lent and Wygodzinsky, Carcavalo et al and Galvão & Dale were mentioned? And about the extensive bibliography on the species complexes? Phenotipic variations? Why these papers were not mentioned and listed?

Reviewer #2: The authors present a novel and useful digital tool for Triatomine species identification, the vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi, a parasite that causes Chagas Disease. TriatoDex is a cell phone app currently available for android phones, which will be available also for iPhones. The authors also performed several tests to assess the performance of TriatoDex in different conditions, such as User training background, user age, insect identification difficulty, etc., in a hypothesis testing framing.

Overall, I think this is a very nice project (TriatoDex), which has been creatively evaluated under different situations and compared to other ways to identify species, such as traditional keys or automated approaches. Triatodex outperformed in several of such challenges.

I can realize this project is the result of hard work, possibly of many years. I can testify the author's group includes well-established experts in Triatomines. I encourage authors to keep TriatoDex updated and expanded when more resources and applications emerge. I appreciate the Prospect section, where authors envisage ways to improve app performance.

My only concern about the models is that the user ID was used as a random variable. Still, in my opinion, tasks are nested in users (i.e., identification tasks are not independent observations). If true, a nested modeling approach could be more suitable for this data.

Minor points:

Line 5.- Consider replacing "Triatominae" with "Insect vectors."

Line 10-.- Add "worldwide" before 150

Line 28. Any clue to the next steps to improve the reliance of TriatoDex to be used by not trained users?

Line 51.- It may be of help to better understand the Chagas disease dimensions, adding a few reasons of why Chagas disease is the main parasitic disease in Latin America

Line 76: Rephrase to emphasize that some regions are species-rich, challenging vector control measures.

Line 85: Consider to add "worldwide" to make clear that TriatDex deals with the worldwide species diversity instead of regional coverage

Line 200: Please explain in more detail why 511 models

**********

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: 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.]

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.

TriatoDex, an electronic identification key to the Triatominae (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), vectors of Chagas disease: development, description, and performance

PONE-D-20-27928R1

Dear Dr. Gurgel-Gonçalves,

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,

Sergio N. Stampar, Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors

After a new evaluation, the reviewers indicated the acceptance of the manuscript. Still, one of the reviewers asked for attention at one point in the manuscript, see below. Please check this point in the final version.

"Some of the points were reasonably answered.

Unfortunately, the authors do not discuss on details about the phenotypic variation on triatomines. The authors very superficially mention on Lines 567 and 568 “– such as, for example, the phenotypically variable T. infestans, T. rubrovaria, T. protracta, Mepraia spp., P. geniculatus, or R. ecuadoriensis. No references were added!

Additionally, the most important Chagas disease vector of northeastern Brazil was neither mentioned nor referred. It is well known that T. brasiliensis presents an important phenotypic variation specially in the Pernambuco State. This information would be extremely helpful for the users of the Triatodex

These are my major concerns related to the manuscript."

Kind regards

Sergio

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 #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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: Some of the points were reasonably answered.

Unfortunately, the authors do not discuss on details about the phenotypic variation on triatomines. The authors very superficially mention on Lines 567 and 568 “– such as, for example, the phenotypically variable T. infestans, T. rubrovaria, T. protracta, Mepraia spp., P. geniculatus, or R. ecuadoriensis. No references were added!

Additionally, the most important Chagas disease vector of northeastern Brazil was neither mentioned nor referred. It is well known that T. brasiliensis presents an important phenotypic variation specially in the Pernambuco State. This information would be extremely helpful for the users of the Triatodex

These are my major concerns related to the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors did a good work addressing my comments and answering my critique about the app testing's statistical design. I have no further questions and recommend this paper for publication in PlosOne

**********

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: No