Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 9, 2022
Decision Letter - Cinzia Ciccacci, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-22-07070Genetic variants determine intrafamilial variability of SARS-CoV-2 clinical outcomes in 19 Italian familiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Azzarà,

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 Sep 26 2022 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: https://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,

Cinzia Ciccacci

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

3. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank the Rome Biomedical Campus University Foundation, the ANIA Foundation and the  Fundraising area of the Rome Biomedical Campus University for financial support of this study. We thank families for their collaboration for this study.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“AA CL received a fellowship for one year by Rome Biomedical Campus University Foundation (AA) and the ANIA Foundation (CL).

https://www.unicampus.it/ateneo/biomedical-university-foundation

https://www.ania.it/

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please expand the acronym “ANIA” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8.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.

[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: No

**********

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: Azzará et al. investigated the transmission dynamics of SARS-COV-2 within Italian families whose members responded in different ways to infection, before the availability of any vaccine. To this, they performed a segregation analysis in 19 families of 42 genes involved in immunity and virus enter. They also performed a global statistical analysis. They identified 18 risk variants co-segregating with COVID-positive status and 6 variants with a protective effect. Moreover, 16 variants showed a trend of association to a severe phenotype. The global statistical analysis confirmed positive associations between specific variants and SARS-COV-2 response. The study is interesting, original, and contributes to the search of variants associated with COVID-19 infection and severity. However, they are few concerns with the manuscript in its current form.

- Regarding the global statistical analysis: as the authors acknowledged, the sample size was small for this analysis and some associations could be lost due to lack of statistical power. This needs to be better discussed in the Discussion section as a limitation of the study.

- Page 14, lines 187-188: What did the authors mean by gene mutation rate? Frequency of each variant? If yes, please correct the information in the text since mutation rate is not the same as the frequency of individual variants.

- There are 8 tables (plus 2 figures). Some tables are unnecessary. Table 2 could be added in the Supplementary material and table 7 could be excluded and the information only written in the main text.

- Table 8 (Statistical global analysis of gene variants): This table could be better described and formatted. Are the frequencies shown for the minor alleles? The authors could add OR for each variant. Please check the frequency of the most mutated gene in positive individuals (STAT2). Positive is 0.62% only? And for what variants these frequencies of the most mutated genes in positive and negative individuals are shown?

- Discussion (page 30, line 432): “…whereas it showed a trend for NLRP1 (p=0.093) as a protective gene (data not shown)”. The authors declared that all information was included in the paper; thus, these data not shown must be included in the paper.

- The Discussion section is too long. It could be shortened.

- It would be interesting to cite a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Plos One regarding the association of genetic variants and COVID-19:

Genetic polymorphisms associated with susceptibility to COVID-19 disease and severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dieter C et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 6;17(7):e0270627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270627.

**********

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: Yes: Daisy Crispim Moreira

**********

[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

- Regarding the global statistical analysis: as the authors acknowledged, the sample size was small for this analysis and some associations could be lost due to lack of statistical power. This needs to be better discussed in the Discussion section as a limitation of the study.

A: We included in the text this aspect in the Discussion section (page 27 lines 463-465).

- Page 14, lines 187-188: What did the authors mean by gene mutation rate? Frequency of each variant? If yes, please correct the information in the text since mutation rate is not the same as the frequency of individual variants.

A: We don’t refer to allele frequency, but the "mutation rate" means the number of variants identified in that gene in our population, in other words how much that gene was mutated in different groups of individuals (i.e. gene specific mutation burden). We specified in all Tables the “gnomAD %” as the “gnomAD MAF %”. We have specified this information in the text (page 12 line 192).

- There are 8 tables (plus 2 figures). Some tables are unnecessary. Table 2 could be added in the Supplementary material and table 7 could be excluded and the information only written in the main text.

A: We agree with the reviewer. We moved Table 2 in the Supplementary Materials (new Suppl. Table 1) and we excluded Table 7. All numbers of the tables were modified: 6 tables (plus 2 figures) in the manuscript and 5 tables in Supplementary tables.

- Table 8 (Statistical global analysis of gene variants): This table could be better described and formatted. Are the frequencies shown for the minor alleles? The authors could add OR for each variant. Please check the frequency of the most mutated gene in positive individuals (STAT2). Positive is 0.62% only? And for what variants these frequencies of the most mutated genes in positive and negative individuals are shown?

A: We agree with the reviewer. We added in the Table 8 (now table 6 in the revised version) the odds ratios with the confidence intervals for each results. We better formatted and described the table in Results of Global analysis section (page 21 lines 312-338).

Moreover, the percentage refers to individuals carrying that specific variant in the study population, not the MAF (minor allele frequency). The MAF of each the variants were reported in the previously tables of the familial segregation (Tables 2-5).

STAT2 was the only gene whose variants were detected exclusively in positive individuals (i.e. 2 variants in 2 patients out of mutated).

- Discussion (page 30, line 432): “…whereas it showed a trend for NLRP1 (p=0.093) as a protective gene (data not shown)”. The authors declared that all information was included in the paper; thus, these data not shown must be included in the paper.

A: “Data not shown” refers to the absence of the gene in the table because we included only the data with a significant p-value (0.093 added). We just wanted to highlight the trend of NRLP1 gene in text (moved to page 26 line 443).

- The Discussion section is too long. It could be shortened.

A: As requested, we shorted the discussion.

- It would be interesting to cite a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Plos One regarding the association of genetic variants and COVID-19:

Genetic polymorphisms associated with susceptibility to COVID-19 disease and severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dieter C et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 6;17(7):e0270627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270627.

A: We have included reference #3

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Cinzia Ciccacci, Editor

Genetic variants determine intrafamilial variability of SARS-CoV-2 clinical outcomes in 19 Italian families

PONE-D-22-07070R1

Dear Dr. Azzarà,

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,

Cinzia Ciccacci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Cinzia Ciccacci, Editor

PONE-D-22-07070R1

Genetic variants determine intrafamilial variability of SARS-CoV-2 clinical outcomes in 19 Italian families

Dear Dr. Azzarà:

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. Cinzia Ciccacci

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 .