Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2021
Decision Letter - Odir Antonio Dellagostin, Editor

PONE-D-21-09857

Effect of disinfection agents on Leptospira in water using a high sensitivity integrity-qPCR assay

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moulin,

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 by each of the reviewers during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Odir Antonio Dellagostin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

[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: I suggest that the title be rewritten. The evaluated method showed limitations when used in treated water; however it showed good results for analyzing fresh water.

Introduction

P.3, L.36 – Include references;

P.4, L.64 – Amphotericin B is an antifungal, correct in the text;

P.4, L.65 – Include dark field microscopy in the sentence;

P.5, L.84 – Include references.

Matherial and methods

P. 12, L.229 - Include geographic coordinates;

Results

P.13, L.243 – 248 - Remove this paragraph, this information has already been given.

Discussion

P.21, L.404 – The authors the authors identified that the pathogenic strain being more tolerant to heat. This is an interesting finding and should be discussed further.

Reviewer #2: The present study is well-written and properly conducted. The Discussion is the section that stands out with an interesting debate about the possible uses of the technique with an impact on public health. I am not sure of the speed of the developed method, so I suggest modify the objective to: investigate the accuracy of a new molecular method for the quantification of potentially viable leptospires in environmental water samples under disinfectants influence.

Minor revisions:

L63-68; L83-84: are not required in the Introduction.

L99 (We implemented ....) - 105 (... animal samples) must be moved to the beginning of the Discussion.

Do not give paragraph on line 96

In Material and Methods, specify the water collection points better. How many points in the Paris city were collected? Did all points receive water treatment included in the city's sanitation?

L371-379: remove from Discussion. This paragraph is not part of the debate.

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer PONE-D-09857.docx
Revision 1

PONE-D-21-09857

Dear Editor,

Thanks for considering our work to be published in your journal. We replied to all the referee remarks and your comments below, in blue.

Sincerely,

Laurent Moulin

Reviewer #1: I suggest that the title be rewritten. The evaluated method showed limitations when used in treated water; however it showed good results for analyzing fresh water.

As suggested, the title was rewritten.

Introduction

P.3, L.36 – Include references;

References added as requested.

P.4, L.64 – Amphotericin B is an antifungal, correct in the text;

Corrected as suggested

P.4, L.65 – Include dark field microscopy in the sentence;

Dark field microscopy has been included in the sentence.

P.5, L.84 – Include references.

References added as requested.

Matherial and methods

P. 12, L.229 - Include geographic coordinates;

Geographical coordinates were added for samples from the Seine river and from the bathing area.

Results

P.13, L.243 – 248 - Remove this paragraph, this information has already been given.

This paragraph was removed as suggested.

Discussion

P.21, L.404 – The authors the authors identified that the pathogenic strain being more tolerant to heat. This is an interesting finding and should be discussed further.

As suggested, this result is now discussed.

Reviewer #2:

The present study is well-written and properly conducted. The Discussion is the section that stands out with an interesting debate about the possible uses of the technique with an impact on public health. I am not sure of the speed of the developed method, so I suggest modify the objective to: investigate the accuracy of a new molecular method for the quantification of potentially viable leptospires in environmental water samples under disinfectants influence.

Many thanks to the reviewers for these nice comments

Minor revisions:

L63-68; L83-84: are not required in the Introduction.

Lanes 63-68 has been shortened and Lanes 83-84 has been removed, as suggested

L99 (We implemented ....) - 105 (... animal samples) must be moved to the beginning of the Discussion.

As suggested, this part has been moved to the beginning of the discussion.

Do not give paragraph on line 96

Paragraph line 96 has been removed

In Material and Methods, specify the water collection points better. How many points in the Paris city were collected? Did all points receive water treatment included in the city's sanitation?

Geographical localization and number of samples were added to this paragraph. These samples were composed by surface water which had not undergone any sanitation treatment.

L371-379: remove from Discussion. This paragraph is not part of the debate.

Most of the paragraph has been shortened

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: RefereeReplyfinal.docx
Decision Letter - Odir Antonio Dellagostin, Editor

Effect of disinfection agents and quantification of potentially viable Leptospira in fresh water samples using a highly sensitive integrity-qPCR assay

PONE-D-21-09857R1

Dear Dr. Moulin,

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,

Odir Antonio Dellagostin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Odir Antonio Dellagostin, Editor

PONE-D-21-09857R1

 Effect of disinfection agents and quantification of potentially viable Leptospira in fresh water samples using a highly sensitive integrity-qPCR assay

Dear Dr. Moulin:

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. Odir Antonio Dellagostin

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 .