Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 9, 2021
Decision Letter - Jean-Luc EPH Darlix, Editor

PONE-D-21-11819

Validation of conventional PCR-like alternative to SARS-CoV-2 detection with target nucleocapsid protein gene in naso-oropharyngeal samples

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carvalho,

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.

Specifically, please summarize the NC functions and the immune responses in natural infections. Relevant references on the viral nucleocapsid N protein are from Luis Enjuanes et al. showing that N is a multifunctional protein with RNA binding and chaperoning activities. In addition specific IGG against N are found in people who experienced Cov infection.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 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,

Jean-Luc EPH Darlix, MG, Ph.D.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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 an interesting paper that describes an alternative, PCR-based method for COVID-19 diagnosis, beyond the predominant real-time PCR methods that are being utilized worldwide. While the total amount of data presented and overall scope of the work is limited, the main point of the paper is important and timely. Thus, while this manuscript is much shorter than most full-length articles, I recommend publishing, due to the importance of the findings.

**********

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

Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Jean-Luc Darlix,

Thank you for your availability and attention in editing our manuscript.

We fully accept the suggestions and respond to all, from the editor and reviewer.

We also include as an author, in this review version, Prof. Fabrício Campos, PhD, a virologist who also contributed to the study.

We do not find it necessary to deposit our protocol in the recommended domain (protocols.io) since our methodology is very descriptive and allows for full reproducibility of all analyzes performed.

A peer-reviewed Lab Protocol article submission we also think it would frame as self-plagiarism.

To avoid any problems in writing in English, we forward the file to a company specialized in academic review. The revision certificate is attached.

We update epidemiological data from Brazil in the introduction.

Specific comments are identified by the authors (AU):

Specifically, please summarize the NC functions and the immune responses in natural infections. Relevant references on the viral nucleocapsid N protein are from Luis Enjuanes et al. showing that N is a multifunctional protein with RNA binding and chaperoning activities. In addition specific IGG against N are found in people who experienced Cov infection.

AU: We have fully included your suggested and reference in the introduction, Line 55 to 55, highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 1:

This is an interesting paper that describes an alternative, PCR-based method for COVID-19 diagnosis, beyond the predominant real-time PCR methods that are being utilized worldwide. While the total amount of data presented and overall scope of the work is limited, the main point of the paper is important and timely. Thus, while this manuscript is much shorter than most full-length articles, I recommend publishing, due to the importance of the findings.

AU: Dear reviewer, thank you for your evaluation.

We are happy for the recognition of the merit of our laborious study, executed under many difficulties in north of Brazil in the current situation.

Our goal has always been the most objective and accurate wording possible. This justifies our shorter format, making it easier to read and interpret the result for the reader.

All authors are grateful for your valuable and important collaboration in evaluation of the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Jean-Luc EPH Darlix, Editor

Validation of conventional PCR-like alternative to SARS-CoV-2 detection with target nucleocapsid protein gene in naso-oropharyngeal samples

PONE-D-21-11819R1

Dear Dr. Carvalho,

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,

Jean-Luc EPH Darlix, MG, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jean-Luc EPH Darlix, Editor

PONE-D-21-11819R1

Validation of conventional PCR-like alternative to SARS-CoV-2 detection with target nucleocapsid protein gene in naso-oropharyngeal samples

Dear Dr. Carvalho:

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

Professor Jean-Luc EPH Darlix

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 .