Density of Aedes aegypti and dengue virus transmission risk in two municipalities of Northwestern Antioquia, Colombia

Wilber Gómez-Vargas; Paola Astrid Ríos-Tapias; Katerine Marin-Velásquez; Erika Giraldo-Gallo; Angela Segura-Cardona; Margarita Arboleda

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295317

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 24, 2023
3 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor PONE-D-23-22160Density of Aedes aegypti and Dengue Virus Transmission Risk in Two Municipalities of Northwestern Antioquia, ColombiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gómez-Vargas, 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 Oct 18 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, Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD 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 note that Figures 1 and 6 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 Figures 1 and 6 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/ [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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: In this article, authors present entomological and virological data related to dengue virus and its transmission in three neighborhoods in Colombia. Though findings are largely descriptive, the information adds to the existing knowledge on vector indices in Latin America that affect dengue in the region. The article is well-written and easy to understand. I have included several comments in the attached manuscript for authors' consideration. Reviewer #2: The author's report regarding dengue fever should include an explanation of the laboratory test that was used to determine confirmed dengue cases, either by a serological test (NS-1, IgG, IgM) or viral load. The author should also elaborate on which WHO criteria that was used. The author needs to be careful when citing references. For example, in line 178 references number 20 and 21 did not refer to the WHO diagnostic criteria. Rather than describing the result, the authors should explain the different findings in the correlation of temperature, humidity, and precipitation with vector density, in Serranía, 29 de noviembre, and 24 de diciembre. Explain why in Serranía there was no correlation between vector density with temperature, humidity, and precipitation, while on 29 de noviembre, and 24 de diciembre significant correlation was observed. The authors need to elaborate on the inconsistency between Table 3 and the paragraph preceding the Table. The total cases reported by SIVIGILA in the paragraph preceding the table and table were consistent, but there was inconsistency in the Total cases captured by the project in the paragraph preceding the table which was reported to be 21 while in Table 3 the total cases captured by the project was 33 and the human positive dengue cases was 21. The author also needs to put the laboratory test that was used to confirm dengue infection in these people. The author should consider putting the sample size formula in The Sample subsection line 194 so that the study could easily reproduced by others who want to do similar research in different countries. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-22160_reviewer_Reviewed.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295317.r001
Revision 1
18 Oct 2023 Author Response Medellín, Colombia, October 18, 2023 Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Subject: Response to comments done to the manuscript: Density of Aedes aegypti and Dengue Virus Transmission Risk in Two Municipalities of Northwestern Antioquia, Colombia. Journal requirements PLOS ONE style requirements were met, including those related to file naming. Figures 1 and 6 do not contain [map/satellite] images that may be copyrighted. In relation to figure 1, in the text on lines 151 to 154 it is explained that: “This figure was constructed using Arc-Gis software and the area of the neighborhoods was delimited using the maps of Apartadó and Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia”. In relation to figure 6, in the text on lines 330 to 333 it is explained that: “For the construction of these maps (Figure 6), the traditional Aedes indices and the vector density indices obtained by the project with ArcGIS 10.5 software were used (see supplementary information S1).”. Response to reviewer's comments 1 Suggest to use Aedes instead of aedic throughout the manuscript: Suggested changes were made throughout the manuscript. 80% - Please check throughout the text: Suggested changes were made throughout the manuscript. Please state the time or duration of this occurrence: “The Urabá region has been experiencing a predominance of acute febrile syndrome, and dengue infection has been identified as a significant contributor to this syndrome since 2007 (15,16).” (Lines in the text of 146 to 148). Any citations or data to support this statement? A quote and data were included that supports this statement. “…was selected for this study due to high number of dengue cases in recent years (2018 to 2020: 82 cases) (18).”. (Lines in the text of 146 to 148). Positivity for immatures?: the positivity for immatures states (larvae and pupae). (Lines in the text of 223 to 224). Please state which taxonomic keys were used for the identification: was used the key of Rueda (2004). (Line 250). Suggest to add the number of human cases reported for each period in the secondary axis of Fig 3 to demonstrate the correlation between the mosquito abundance and human cases in the study areas: The number of human cases reported for each period were added on the X axis in Fig 3. Is this DEN-1 and DEN-2?: The table was corrected. Please discuss these contrasting findings on climatic variable in a broader context based on what has previously been recorded in literature, particularly in the Americas. “..which has a good water supply all year round”. (Lines in the text of 580 to 581). “…such as the presence of the vector outside the homes such as disposable containers, tires, among others”. (Lines in the text of 583 to 584). “In these neighborhoods, due to the poor water supply, the inhabitants are forced to store water throughout the year, especially in dry weather”. (Lines in the text of 590 to 591). “That is why the rains favor the increase of breeding sites and cases of dengue. In dry periods and low temperatures, vectors decrease, a situation that does not stop the transmission of the disease, due to the active biting behavior of the vector that favors the spread of the virus (41). It can be observed that the impact of rainfall varied according to the neighborhood, this may be due to the differences in the types of water storage containers with Ae. aegypti's larvae that affects the density of the adult mosquito, as was the case with a study conducted in Ecuador by Stewart-Ibarra et al. (42)”. (Lines in the text of 600 to 609). “In Brazil, when analyzing the correlation between the total number of insects collected and Ae. aegypti house indices (HI) in relation to climatic variables of temperature, humidity, rainfall, among others, regardless of locality, these variables had a direct influence on the distribution and presence of mosquitoes (44,45). Therefore, it is important to highligth that mosquito populations can change, to better adapt to local environmental conditions (46,47)” (Lines in the text of 619 to 625). Please provide additional information on the proportion of DENV-1 and DENV-2 among human samples in the study area. This data will strengthen the vector findings: Additional information was as follows: “Of the 21 dengue cases identified for the project, 12 positive cases were identified by RT-PCR, of which the DEN-1 serotype was the most frequent with 75% (9/12), followed by the DEN-2 serotype with 25% (3/12). The remaining nine were identified by detection of IgM antibodies using the Elisa technique and six of these also had the presence of NS1 antigen.”. (Lines in the text of 669 to 674). Please also discuss the challenges in conducting entomo-virological surveillance. Even though it is essential, many challenges affect the utility of this approach: Lines in the text of 679 to 700: “These findings underscore the importance of entomo-virological surveillance as part of the routine surveillance of municipalities which is a useful tool to identify high-risk areas for virus transmission and an epidemiological alert system to directly control critical areas of activity for vector control especially because people circulating or living in places where these infected mosquitoes are identified are exposed to bites most of the day (48–51). Strategies for virological surveillance of Aedes mosquitoes commonly focus on females because females are hematophagous, whereas males are not (52). Although DENV is transmitted primarily by the bite of female mosquitoes infected with human blood (horizontal transmission), both vertical (in which the infected mosquito is able to transmit the virus to its progeny) and sexual (when an infected male transmits the virus to the female during copulation) transmission have been suggested as an important mechanism for maintaining arbovirus circulation in vector populations (53–55). However, the challenges for the incorporation of entomo-virological surveillance in dengue control programs must have the necessary infrastructure, trained personnel and political (financial) support to implement it and the importance of evaluating its impact on the disease burden in the short, medium, and long term. Its inclusion in control programs should be assessed according to local capacities and the integrated use of other control tools (56)”. Responses to reviewer's comments 2 The author's report regarding dengue fever should include an explanation of the laboratory test that was used to determine confirmed dengue cases, either by a serological test (NS-1, IgG, IgM) or viral load. The author should also elaborate on which WHO criteria that was used. The author needs to be careful when citing references. For example, in line 178 references number 20 and 21 did not refer to the WHO diagnostic criteria. “Laboratory confirmation of dengue virus infection was done through RT-PCTR tests in the case of patients recruited ≤ five days of symptom onset and by detection of IgM antibodies by ELISA in those recruited from day six of symptom onset, in accordance with WHO criteria (22).” The reference was updated. (Lines in the text of 177 to 181). Rather than describing the result, the authors should explain the different findings in the correlation of temperature, humidity, and precipitation with vector density, in Serranía, 29 de noviembre, and 24 de diciembre. Explain why in Serranía there was no correlation between vector density with temperature, humidity, and precipitation, while on 29 de noviembre, and 24 de diciembre significant correlation was observed. “..which has a good water supply all year round”. (Lines in the text of 580 to 581). “…such as the presence of the vector outside the homes such as disposable containers, tires, among others”. (Lines in the text of 583 to 584). “In these neighborhoods, due to the poor water supply, the inhabitants are forced to store water throughout the year, especially in dry weather”. (Lines in the text of 590 to 591). “That is why the rains favor the increase of breeding sites and cases of dengue. In dry periods and low temperatures, vectors decrease, a situation that does not stop the transmission of the disease, due to the active biting behavior of the vector that favors the spread of the virus (41). It can be observed that the impact of rainfall varied according to the neighborhood, this may be due to the differences in the types of water storage containers with Ae. aegypti's larvae that affects the density of the adult mosquito, as was the case with a study conducted in Ecuador by Stewart-Ibarra et al. (42)”. (Lines in the text of 600 to 609). “In Brazil, when analyzing the correlation between the total number of insects collected and Ae. aegypti house indices (HI) in relation to climatic variables of temperature, humidity, rainfall, among others, regardless of locality, these variables had a direct influence on the distribution and presence of mosquitoes (44,45). Therefore, it is important to highligth that mosquito populations can change, to better adapt to local environmental conditions (46,47)” (Lines in the text of 619 to 625). The authors need to elaborate on the inconsistency between Table 3 and the paragraph preceding the Table. The total cases reported by SIVIGILA in the paragraph preceding the table and table were consistent, but there was inconsistency in the Total cases captured by the project in the paragraph preceding the table which was reported to be 21 while in Table 3 the total cases captured by the project was 33 and the human positive dengue cases was 21. The author also needs to put the laboratory test that was used to confirm dengue infection in these people. The paragraph was corrected: “During this period, 77 cases of dengue fever were recorded, 56 of which were reported by SIVIGILA and the total number of cases captured by the project was 33 and the number of positive dengue cases in humans was 21 in the neighborhoods mentioned, being 14, 5 and 2 cases in Serranía, 24 de diciembre and 29 de noviembre, respectively.” (Lines in the text of 485 to 490). The author should consider putting the sample size formula in The Sample subsection line 194 so that the study could easily reproduced by others who want to do similar research in different countries. The sample size was calculated according to the following formula: =(Z^2 NP(1-P))/(N-1e^(2 )+Z^2 P(1-P)) Where; Z =1,96 (95%) N= number of houses in the neighborhood pq= variance e= sampling error (Lines in the text of 203 to 209). Kind regards; Wilber Gómez-Vargas Gomez.wilber@uces.edu.co Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295317.r002
20 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor Density of Aedes aegypti and Dengue Virus Transmission Risk in Two Municipalities of Northwestern Antioquia, Colombia PONE-D-23-22160R1 Dear Dr. Gómez-Vargas, 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, Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD 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: Authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily. Pls make sure to go through the manuscript to correct minor grammatical and syntax errors. 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295317.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor PONE-D-23-22160R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gómez-Vargas, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Harapan Harapan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295317.r004

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 .