PONE-D-22-24351Temporal assessment of entomological surveillance and control of Trypanosoma cruzi vectors in an endemic area of northeastern Brazil.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sampaio,

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. Both reviewers identified merits in the manuscript to be published in PLOS ONE, but highlighted some important changes to be done before its acceptance, especially concerning the alignment of Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. We will be delighted to receive the revised manuscript soon.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 20 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,

André Luiz Rodrigues Roque

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"This work has not been submitted elsewhere for publication and will not be until we receive your reply regarding publication in your Journal. And also, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without the written consent of the copyright-holder."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. We note that Figure 1, S1, S2, S3 and S4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, S1, S2, S3 and S4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[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: 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: The presented article describes the impact of triatomine surveillance and control measures between 2005 and 2015 in an endemic area for Chagas disease in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.

This is an interesting approach and brings relevant information about vector control of triatomines in Agreste mesoregion, endemic area of Chagas disease, of the Rio Grande do Norte and describes changes in entomological surveillance metrics, used to monitor T. cruzi vectors in Brazil.

The methods are adequate in part to meet the proposed objectives, and the results and discussion are well described, needing some review and organization of the presented ideas. The conclusion section must be reviewed to align to presented objectives.

The manuscript has merits for be published in PLOS ONE, however, a few changes and corrections must be made before its acceptance.

General Comments

1 – Consider using the nomenclature “T.cruzi-like” instead of “T.cruzi” when referring to the diagnosis observed in the parasitological examination. Through the fresh parasitological examination, it is not possible to specifically distinguish T. cruzi from other species of the Trypanosoma genus, or even other flagellated protozoa of the Trypanosomatidae Family. Only molecular diagnosis can differentiate the species of the genus, and sometimes with a great difficulty.

2 – Consider review the objective: “Therefore, this study evaluated the impact of triatomine surveillance and control measures between 2005 and 2015 in an endemic area for ChD in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.”

Here some arguments: your study evaluated the impact of triatomine surveillance on/over what? I mean, your objective was to describe the presented data or was to evaluate the impact over some specific determinant over the time? Please, consider reviewing the objectives to guide you along the Results, Discussion and Conclusion section. Also, these sections need to be better align with your objectives.

3 – Review the taxonomic rules of the scientific nomenclature. Review the abbreviations of the Triatoma genus and other genera along with all of the text.

4 - Consider amplifying the impact of your results. For example, what is the impact of the data presented for Brazil and for the world?

Methods

1 – Describe your study design. Prospective, retrospective? Align the study methods to your scientific questions and main reviewed objectives.

Statistical Analysis

2 – Describe the software or packages used to analyze and geoprocessing the data.

3 – Do you describe β coefficient in the Results section, but don’t describe this analysis in the Methods section.

Results

1 - In the first paragraph of the results, between lines 133 and 137, it describes information regarding the method session. Consider relocating the information to the correct section.

Discussion

1 - Consider reviewing all this section, better organize the ideas to maintain the same sequence of information described at the results section, and align to your objectives.

Conclusions

1 - Consider review this section to align with the proposed objective.

References

1 - Consider review, some references do not present the DOI, some are not adequately formatted.

Specific Comments

Line 6 – “Active entomological” – these data also include captured triatomines reported by passive surveillance through PITs? (Triatomine Information Post).

Line 25 – First taxonomic description of Trypanosoma cruzi. Consider include the complete description of the taxa - Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas, 1909) – as presented for the triatomine names. Also, to the other taxonomic entities.

Line 45 – Consider reviewing the argument presented as evidence of active transmission of T. cruzi. A study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21249297) showed that about 3.7% of mothers were infected with T. cruzi and 2.5% of their newborn children acquired the parasite congenitally. (mother and child). Other values indicate even higher numbers “Argentina (6%), in 292 of 7,086 in Bolivia (4.1%) and in 115 of 2,691 in Paraguay (4.3%)” (https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760140405). The data presented in your manuscript informs “...1 out of 1,750 samples analyzed from the state of RN was positive for anti-T. crossed antibodies…”. This indicates a prevalence of 0.058%, much lower than what was observed in transmission without the presence of the vector. Despite of this, these are epidemiologically distinct scenarios, so my suggestion to the authors is that they consider better developing the presented rationale of this paragraph.

Line 50-52 – Since triatomine species have already been cited, consider writing the cited species in abbreviated form. Additionally, the full name of the species P. megistus has the wrong descriptor (Neiva and Pinto, 1923).

Line 71 – instead of “better control with ChD” consider “better control of ChD transmission.”

Line 100 – Please, consider better describing “exhaustively.”

Line 105 – Consider T.cruzi-like when referring to parasitological test.

Line 158-159 – Duplicated word - “index.”

Line 165-167 – Once this triatomines species is already presented in the text, consider abbreviating their genus. Triatoma pseudomaculata as T. pseudomaculata.

Also, please observe Triatoma Brasiliensis.

Lines 169-170 – Once these triatomine species are already presented in the text, consider abbreviating their genus.

Lines 187-190 – Consider review the sentence: “The risk of transmission of T. cruzi persists due to the existence of autochthonous triatomine species with colonization potential and the persistence of residual foci of Triatoma infestans in both sylvatic [39] and domestic environments [40,41].” Here some arguments: This specie was not part of your sample, there are no longer colonies of this specie in Brazil, Triatoma infestans in sylvatic environments does not occur in Brazil.

Lines 198 – Consider review the sentence: “The infested areas without residual spraying become a favorable habitat for the proliferation of triatomines, with abundant vertebrate hosts for blood-feeding because of the availability of humans and various species of domestic and peridomestic animals, in addition to resting sites and hiding places in the HU. Thus, spraying the adjacent surrounding areas prevents large-scale spatial displacement from infested areas of triatomines in search of bloodmeals.”

Line 247-249 – Consider review the sentence: “The main objective of ChD control programs is to eradicate domestic colonies of triatomines and maintain continuous surveillance against new-colonization” by “The main objective of ChD vector control programs is to eradicate domestic colonies of triatomines and maintain continuous surveillance of T. cruzi vectors.”

Line 253 – Consider review the sentence: “In low-risk municipalities” by “In municipalities classified as low-risk for T. cruzi transmission”

Line 277 – Consider review the sentence: “have been reported” by “have been reported previously.”

Line 288 – Consider review the sentence: “but a specificity of 100% for

T. cruzi.” Only molecular methods can differentiate T. cruzi from others Trypanosomatidae (Family). May I ask you, which were the taxonomic markers do you used to differentiate T. cruzi from T. donovanni, at parasitological examination, for example?

Figures

Figure 1. The presented figure needs to be intensively reviewed. It’s not necessary to keep the author of the figure at the figure. Two legends of color degrade are presented in the figure, but it’s not clear to which map it belongs, please review the figure. Consider insert legends (A, B and C) to each tree maps presented at the Figure 1. Also, better describe this information at Figure 1 description.

Reviewer #2: General comments

The manuscript (MS) deals with an analysis of data from the health secretariats on the work carried out by them in vector control. The period covered by the analyzes covers 10 years (2005-2015). The MS is very well written and the data were adequately treated statistically. The authors concluded that the coverage of control measures has been decreasing in recent years, which is very worrying. Therefore, bringing this data to the public is important and so I am in favor of publishing this communication. Below I present a few suggestions and corrections for MS improvement.

Minor comments

Abstract

Ln 8-10: “The quantitative9 analysis of housing units surveyed for entomological indicators was performed by linear regression of random effects (p < 0.05).”

Please, let clear which comparison was significant

“and control of vectors”

This piece is in bold. It needs to be in regular font.

Along the whole text

Species names should be written in full at first, but for later mentions, the genus name must be abbreviated. E.g. “Triatoma brasiliensis (= “T. brasiliensis”).

Ln 220. I assume the word “susing” is in fact “using”

Ln 245-246: “Interventions such as improving housing conditions and organizing the peridomicile [1,52], as well as keeping dogs, cats and rodents out of human sleeping areas”

This recommendation is realistic only for rodents. Please, re-thing its necessity.

Ln 291: “291 for diagnosis, showed natural infection rates of up to 79% in Triatoma brasiliensis [20].”

In fact, Lilioso and colleagues found up to 100% of natural infection (see Fig 3). What is worse, this population was collected aside from the sugar cane mill responsible for the outbreak in Marcelino Vieira.

CEA

**********

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: Yes: Carlos Eduardo Almeida

**********

[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: Revision, PLOS ONE, Manuscript Number PONE-D-22-24351.docx

PONE-D-22-24351R1Temporal assessment of entomological surveillance of Trypanosoma cruzi vectors in an endemic area of northeastern BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sampaio,

This version was not reviewed by me. Authors have to answer the comments of the second reviewer too, modifying the manuscript, when applicable. And then, resubmit the R1 version of the manuscript with comments to both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 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,

André Luiz Rodrigues Roque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

PONE-D-22-24351R2Temporal assessment of entomological surveillance of Trypanosoma cruzi vectors in an endemic area of northeastern BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sampaio,

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.

Once again, authors submitted the response letter and modified manuscript without considering the comments by reviewer 2. Maybe, authors did not find the comments in the system, then, I'm pasting below the comments of Reviewer 2 that have to be answered and modified, when applicable.

General comments

The manuscript (MS) deals with an analysis of data from the health secretariats on the work carried out by them in vector control. The period covered by the analyzes covers 10 years (2005-2015). The MS is very well written and the data were adequately treated statistically. The authors concluded that the coverage of control measures has been decreasing in recent years, which is very worrying. Therefore, bringing this data to the public is important and so I am in favor of publishing this communication. Below I present a few suggestions and corrections for MS improvement.

Minor comments

Abstract

Ln 8-10: “The quantitative9 analysis of housing units surveyed for entomological indicators was performed by linear regression of random effects (p < 0.05).”

Please, let clear which comparison was significant

“and control of vectors”

This piece is in bold. It needs to be in regular font.

Along the whole text

Species names should be written in full at first, but for later mentions, the genus name must be abbreviated. E.g. “Triatoma brasiliensis (= “T. brasiliensis”).

Ln 220. I assume the word “susing” is in fact “using”

Ln 245-246: “Interventions such as improving housing conditions and organizing the peridomicile [1,52], as well as keeping dogs, cats and rodents out of human sleeping areas”

This recommendation is realistic only for rodents. Please, re-thing its necessity.

Ln 291: “291 for diagnosis, showed natural infection rates of up to 79% in Triatoma brasiliensis [20].”

In fact, Lilioso and colleagues found up to 100% of natural infection (see Fig 3). What is worse, this population was collected aside from the sugar cane mill responsible for the outbreak in Marcelino Vieira.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 29 2023 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,

André Luiz Rodrigues Roque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Temporal assessment of entomological surveillance of Trypanosoma cruzi vectors in an endemic area of northeastern Brazil.

PONE-D-22-24351R3

Dear Dr. Sampaio,

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,

André Luiz Rodrigues Roque

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. 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: Gilmar Ribeiro-Jr.

Reviewer #2: No

**********