Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2021
Decision Letter - Sagheer Atta, Editor

PONE-D-21-09819

Increased diversity with absence of site-specific selection bias in SAR-CoV-2 genomes from the early pandemic period in Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zahra,

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 Jul 24 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,

Sagheer Atta, 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.Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "This work received approval by the Ethical Review Committee, Aga Khan University.".   

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: In this manuscript, 32 SARS-CoV-2 strains were isolated, of which 21 were complete genome and 11 partial. Complete genome sequences have been submitted to Genbank. Phylogenic, SNP and selection analyses have been performed for these genomes.

Comments:

(1) This manuscript was not well-organized and the English writings need to be improved, such as typos and misuse of punctuation.

(2) There should be more details about SARS-CoV-2 cases, epidemiology and evolution in Pakistan in the background part.

(3) There are 57 complete and high coverage genome sequences available from Pakistan at Sep. 31, 2000 in the GISAID EpiCoV database. These genomes need to be added for phylogenetic analyses. Moreover, other genome sequences used in analyses need description. E.g., the choose of the 449 full-length sequences, and the 6523 global complete sequences. By the way, the "supplemtary file 1" is not available.

(4) HyPHY SLAC is not adequate for selection pressure analysis. More methods need to be applied. And the gene/cds used for the analysis need to be indicated.

(5) High-resolution figures for Fig. 1 and 2 need to be provided. Phylogenetic tree should be displayed in rectangular, rather than circular.

(6) A clear conclusion need be provided. The difference and relationship of first and second wave should be discussed.

(7) Some references were not cited properly.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a meaningful and useful result, and futher increases our understanding of SAR-CoV-2 in Pakistan.

However, the genomic analysis of this manuscript is not deep enough.

For example, in Fig1 and Fig2, the clades and isolate date are needed to shown in figures and analysis, the additional analysis may make the conclusion of this manuscript more credible.

Page16: Figure 3.

**********

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.

Revision 1

View Letter

Dear Dr. Ata,

Editor PLOS ONE,

Thank you for the review of our submitted manuscript:

PONE-D-21-09819

Increased diversity with absence of site-specific selection bias in SAR-CoV-2 genomes from the early pandemic period in Pakistan.

We provide responses to the questions raised by the reviewers as below:

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

- thank you for sharing these links. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the required style templates

2.Thank you for including your ethics statement: "This work received approval by the Ethical Review Committee, Aga Khan University.".

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

- thank you for this comment. We have described the process of testing from anonymized archived samples and Ethical Review Committee approval was received as a wavier of informed consent for the project. This has been added in the Methods section.

3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

- All data is available publically. Accession numbers of the SARS-CoV-2 deposited and available are present in Methods and also in Supplementary Table 1.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

- Not applicable – data is provided

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

- This correction has been made.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewers Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, 32 SARS-CoV-2 strains were isolated, of which 21 were complete genome and 11 partial. Complete genome sequences have been submitted to Genbank. Phylogenic, SNP and selection analyses have been performed for these genomes.

Comments:

(1) This manuscript was not well-organized and the English writings need to be improved, such as typos and misuse of punctuation.

- We have re-organised the paper and made necessary English language corrections.

(2) There should be more details about SARS-CoV-2 cases, epidemiology and evolution in Pakistan in t-he background part.

- The background has been revised to include more details about COVID-19 in Pakistan and to also include what is know about the genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the country.

(3) There are 57 complete and high coverage genome sequences available from Pakistan at Sep. 31, 2000 in the GISAID EpiCoV database. These genomes need to be added for phylogenetic analyses. Moreover, other genome sequences used in analyses need description. E.g., the choose of the 449 full-length sequences, and the 6523 global complete sequences. By the way, the "supplemtary file 1" is not available.

- We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now included all additional samples available from Pakistan on GISAID. Therefore, we have conducted analysis of 90 genomes in total.

Supplementary file 1 has been added – we apologise that it was missed last time. Corrections have been made to correctly list the number of strains which were analysed.

(4) HyPHY SLAC is not adequate for selection pressure analysis. More methods need to be applied. And the gene/cds used for the analysis need to be indicated.

- Thank you for the advice. Additional analysis has been conducted and included in the study. These are described in methods and the results. Further, statistical analysis has been performed.

(5) High-resolution figures for Fig. 1 and 2 need to be provided. Phylogenetic tree should be displayed in rectangular, rather than circular.

- Fig 1 phylogenetic tree has been displayed as a rectangular figure. High-resolution figures have now been included.

(6) A clear conclusion need be provided. The difference and relationship of first and second wave should be discussed.

- Conclusions have been revised and the relationships between the first and second wave of COVID-19 in Pakistan have been discussed.

(7) Some references were not cited properly.

- References have been checked and cited as necessary.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a meaningful and useful result, and futher increases our understanding of SAR-CoV-2 in Pakistan.

However, the genomic analysis of this manuscript is not deep enough.

For example, in Fig1 and Fig2, the clades and isolate date are needed to shown in figures and analysis, the additional analysis may make the conclusion of this manuscript more credible.

Page16: Figure 3.

- The comments of Reviewer 2 are not completely clear. We understand that the reviewer required a deeper genomic analysis. This has now been provided through the additional analysis that has been conducted.

- Further we have included additional figures to describe the clades as per the date that they were identified (S Fig1 and S Fig 2).

- Further mutational analysis has been performed regarding the entropy across the genome and also site-specific entropy. The conclusions have been justified accordingly and we hope that this will not be acceptable

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to reviewers_30_7_21.docx
Decision Letter - Sagheer Atta, Editor

Higher entropy observed in SAR-CoV-2 genomes from the first COVID-19 wave in Pakistan

PONE-D-21-09819R1

Dear Dr. Hasan,

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,

Sagheer Atta, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sagheer Atta, Editor

PONE-D-21-09819R1

Higher entropy observed in SAR-CoV-2 genomes from the first COVID-19 wave in Pakistan

Dear Dr. Hasan:

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. Sagheer Atta

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 .