Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 12, 2021
Decision Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor

PONE-D-21-12148

Immunosurveillance and molecular detection of hepatitis B virus infection amongst vaccinated children in the West Gonja District in Savanna Region of Ghana

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Narkwa,

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 different points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 6 weeks. 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,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[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

**********

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: 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: This is a cross-sectional study conducted by investigators at three universities of Ghana to decide the seroprotection rate and the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among 350 fully vaccinated children in the West of Gonja, Ghana, Africa, in 2019. Ghana is a low-income country where HBV vaccination was implemented in 2002. The study supplies data like international publications.

Although hepatitis B is an immuno-preventable disease, there is still a substantial proportion of people suffering from chronic infection and of these, more than 80% are in sub-Saharan Africa. Although in Ghana the prevalence of chronic HBV infection is less than 10%, it is particularly important to know the vaccination status.

The authors presented an interesting manuscript, whose implemented method that supports the obtained findings and their conclusions. The results of this study show the importance of monitoring seroprotection after vaccination for HBV to assess the ability of the vaccine.

This study is also important because in West Gonja, Damongo no studies have been carried out to evaluate seroprotection and therefore its findings supply new knowledge. Although electricity problems are known to affect the quality of the vaccine, it is important that these findings are considered when implementing post-vaccination surveillance programs.

Specific comments

1. The introduction has the overall context and approach of importance of vaccination HBV.

2. In the study design and study site section, the authors should include a further description of the geographical area where the study was carried out. Consider aspects of temperature, organization, size of the city, population or another information that authors considers important.

3. In the study population and eligibility criteria to include how much is the n of the population from 9 months to 17 years and of these how many are fully vaccinated. What was the sample size calculation? Indicate the prevalence for hepatitis B infection and the power considered to calculate the sample size. Additionally, describe in detail the inclusion criteria for the study.

4. In the laboratory analysis section to include the number of replicates of the experiment and how the authors confirmed the results.

5. In the DNA detection section, which controls were used. Mention the sensitivity and specificity of the molecular test.

6. In the results section, explain in detail how many children were initially screened and how many didn't have the inclusion criteria.

7.It is suggested to the authors for the presentation of the results of Table 3, to make a flow chart that writes down in better detail the results obtained in the serological and molecular study. This table does not have an adequate presentation.

8. The conclusion describes that 86% of the participants seroconverted after primary vaccination. Could the authors explain how was obtained this result?

**********

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

[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

20th July, 2021

The Editor in Chief

PLoS One Journal

Dear Editor in Chief,

SUBMISSION OF REVISED MANUSCRIPT FOR PUBLICATION

I would like to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled ‘Immunosurveillance and molecular detection of hepatitis B virus infection amongst vaccinated children in the West Gonja District in Savanna Region of Ghana by Theophilus Quaye, Patrick W. Narkwa, Seth A. Domfeh, Gloria Kattah and Mohamed Mutocheluh to be considered for publication as a research article in the PLoS One Journal.

We thank the academic editor and the reviewer(s) for their generous comments on the manuscript. We have edited the manuscript to address their concerns.

Below are the full responses to the comments of the academic editor and the reviewer(s).

Academic editor’s comments and responses

Comment 1

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response

The manuscript has been carefully checked against PLOS ONE’s style requirement and we believe these requirements have been duly met.

Comment 2

Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Response

The questionnaire that was developed and used in the study has been provided as supporting information.

Comment 3

We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Response

The sentence which was referenced as ‘data not shown’ has been deleted as it does not form a core part of the study.

Review comments and responses

Comment 1

The introduction has the overall context and approach of importance of vaccination HBV.

Response

Not Applicable

Comment 2

In the study design and study site section, the authors should include a further description of the geographical area where the study was carried out. Consider aspects of temperature, organization, size of the city, population or another information that authors considers important.

Response:

The study design and site section have accordingly been updated with the description as suggested by the reviewer in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3

In the study population and eligibility criteria to include how much is the n of the population from 9 months to 17 years and of these how many are fully vaccinated. What was the sample size calculation? Indicate the prevalence for hepatitis B infection and the power considered to calculate the sample size. Additionally, describe in detail the inclusion criteria for the study.

Response

Data on how much is the n of the population aged 9 months to 17 years was very difficult to obtain as data from Ghana Statistical Service 2010 Population and Housing Census only indicated that the population of the West Gonja District is youthful with14.6% being between the ages of 0-4 years. The prevalence of hepatitis B infection and the power considered in calculating the sample size has been indicated in the revised manuscript. Also the inclusion and exclusion criteria have been described.

Comment 4

In the laboratory analysis section to include the number of replicates of the experiment and how the authors confirmed the results.

Response

The number of replicates and how the ELISA tests results were confirmed have been indicated in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5

In the DNA detection section, which controls were used. Mention the sensitivity and specificity of the molecular test.

Response

The controls used in RT-PCR have been indicated in the revised manuscript. The sensitivity and specificity of the molecular test as indicated by the manufacturer of the kits have been stated.

Comment 6

In the results section, explain in detail how many children were initially screened and how many didn't have the inclusion criteria.

Response

The number of children who were screened and met the inclusion criteria have explained in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 7

It is suggested to the authors for the presentation of the results of Table 3, to make a flow chart that writes down in better detail the results obtained in the serological and molecular study. This table does not have an adequate presentation.

Response

The focus of Table 3 is to look at the distribution of serological and molecular markers of HBV in relation to the demographics of the study participants. Several options including graphical presentation as well as use of flow chart (as suggested by the reviewer) in presenting the data were considered initially. But after careful analysis, we observed that using graphs or flow chart in presenting the data would rather have some information hidden which would make it a bit difficult for readers to comprehend. We are therefore of the opinion that presenting the data in the table as has been done in Table 3 better makes it easier to understand the information that we want to put across.

Comment 8

The conclusion describes that 86% of the participants seroconverted after primary vaccination. Could the authors explain how was obtained this result?

Response

The sero-conversion rate was determined by dividing the number of participants which had anti-HBs titers > 1mIU/mL by the total number of participants that is 301 divided by 350. However since the focus of the study was on the level of protection gained after hepatitis B vaccination, the sero-conversion part in the conclusion has been removed as the sero-conversion analysis was not captured under the result section.

We believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLoS One Journal.

Sincerely yours,

SIGNED

Patrick W. Narkwa (PhD)

(Corresponding author)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER(S).docx
Decision Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor

Immunosurveillance and molecular detection of hepatitis B virus infection amongst vaccinated children in the West Gonja District in Savanna Region of Ghana

PONE-D-21-12148R1

Dear Dr. Narkwa,

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,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor

PONE-D-21-12148R1

Immunosurveillance and molecular detection of hepatitis B virus infection amongst vaccinated children in the West Gonja District in Savanna Region of Ghana

Dear Dr. Narkwa:

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

Mrs Isabelle Chemin

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 .