PONE-D-23-19373Evidence of reassortment of A (H2) avian influenza viruses in shorebirds in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Araujo,

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 Nov 04 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,

James Lee Crainey, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Grant/Award Number: 2011/13821-7 and  2017/01125-2; US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) and by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC) program, Grant/Award Number: (HHSN266200700005C); Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Project:, Grant/ Award Number: 2008005_WCS_OWOH and 2009005_WCS_OWOH; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Grant/Award Number: 09/0574-7. Field campaigns on RJNP were supported by ICMBio through the GEF Mar Project for monitoring shorebirds.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. 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.

5. We note that Figure 1 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].”

2. 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 upload a new copy of Figure 3 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

7. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: 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

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: Thomazalli: Evidence of reassortment of A (H2) avian influenza viruses in shorebirds in Brazil.

The authors report the phylogenetic results of two H2 viruses found in waders in South America.

I find the framing of this study strange. H2 is a common LPAI subtype in wild birds, and so is framing LPAI viruses from shorebirds as a human pandemic risk really logical? Shouldn’t this be framed in the context of avian influenza and LPAI in general?

Along the same vein, the discussion is very locally focussed and doesn’t draw any information from global dynamics. For example, that H2 viruses from Terns in Australia were similarly mosaic viruses seems interesting context.

Line 67. Do you really mean that these disease signs are found in waterfowl (And without a reference)? In my experience, H2 is routinely detected and isolated from health waterfowl. I think you mean poultry?

Line 68. “variants” is not the correct terminology at all. You mean “subtypes”.

Line 78. This general phylogenetic division is found in most AIV subtypes, and this should be mentioned. I would say something like: Like most AIV subtypes, H2 is phylogenetic divided into two broad clades, based on geographic circulation. Unlike most AIV subtypes, however, North American sequences can be found in both the classic North America and Eurasian clades as a result of a transhemispheric transmission event and subsequent proliferation.” Line 80-81 is too vague.. what do you mean “by documented”. More detail.

Missing entirely is the role of shorebirds. Missing entirely is the interesting history of geographic mosasism, very much limited to gulls, terns and shorebirds. This is more relevant for this paper, than H2 human pandemic risk.

Line 104. Do you mean combined cloacal oral swabs, OR either cloacal or oral swabs were collected?

Line 114. Which VTM formulations?

Line 152-157. More detail about which tools and algorithms are involved here would be useful.

Lin e164. Why did you use the GTR+G+I for all segments. This is not in line with the best fit models for all segments, and nucleotide sub models have an impact on phylogenetic structure. Just choosing the most complex isn’t necessarily the best one.

Line 167-169 is repitition of line 164. Lines 169-175 are not required.

Line 177. How did you remove gaps? Manually? Did you maybe delete a base due to poor quality gappy sequences?

Line 185-188. More detail. How many samples from which species? Did you target the same populations repeatedly? How does prevalence change with time or species?

Figure 1. The pacific flyway does not include Florida. Birds also don’t really fly over the open from Florida all to the way to Argentina. The Atlantic flyway doesn’t start in the open ocean. I think that the flyway part of this figure needs to be reconsidered. I appreciate that its conceptual.. but it could be improved substnaitaly. The text on top of the photos is not legible. Currently not an effective figure.

Line 200. Subjected is not the correct word… Rather you generated sequences from these samples.

Line 212: Pls add the GenBank Accession for the virus from Wisconsin, from Ohio, from California etc

Table 1. The influenza designations are incorrect. Why is the sample ID at the end? It should be A/host/Country/SampleID/Year(HxNx). Please fix this. Verify that it is correct in all figures and the text.

Figure 2. The small sub-tree is too small. I cant read the tip labels so this needs to be resolved. The bright green is impossible to read.

Can you add branch colours to the big tree too?

There is major rooting issue on the mega tree that needs to be resolved.

You need to specify in the legend how you rooted the tree.

What sequences are in this big tree? All H2 viruses in GenBank? Or for only certain time frames?

And “branch lengths proportional to evolutionary distance” is vague. Should this not be “scale bar represes number of substitutions per site”? Or is IQ tree doing something different?

Figure 3/4.

Please clarify which sequences are in the mega tree. Colour branches. Rooting issues here (Fig 3, Fig 4 looks ok). Please clarify rooting. Please add a scale bar.

Change NA1/NA2 to N1/N2 OR NA-N1/NA-N2.

The quality is low and tip labels grainy (Figure 3, but 4 is ok). Tips colorus are inconsistent.. shoudlnt all tips be coloured. The neon green is impossible to read. Where is the scale bar?

Why is the way the format of Figure 2 different from 3/4?

Supplemental figures consistently missing scale bars. The rooting on the large trees should be carefully assessed. There are inconsistencies in branch colouring. For some (e.g. the M tree) the tip names are not legible due to being tiny… so formatting needs to be fixed here.

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the manuscript “Evidence of reassortment of A{H2} avian influenza viruses in shorebirds in Brazil”. The authors isolated and sequenced two H2 isolates and characterized them phylogenetically, documenting that the viral genomes were derived from a variety of geographic sources via reassortment. The paper used valid viral, genomic and phylogenetic techniques but the manuscript needs some revision, primarily to edit grammar and writing issues. I have listed several suggestions below but strongly suggest editorial review by the authors, perhaps enlisting experienced assistance.

I suggest editing the title to “Evidence of reassortment of avian influenza A {H2} viruses in Brazilian shorebirds”. This is more in line with accepted virus nomenclature.

Line 63, 64 probably needs a citation citing the “concern”. Maybe Joseph et al. 2015.

Line 75. Remove “countries including”

Line 83. I am not sure how this surveillance was “prospective” particularly since samples were collected in part, in 2012.

Line 84. Sentence needs revision as it contains 4 “ins” within 9 words.

Line 92. Can delete “however”

Line 100. Should maintain past tense so change to “provided”.

Lines 104 and 112. Authors use cloacal/oral and then oropharyngeal/cloacal to describe sampling technique. Which is it and be consistent. Also, line 104 swabs should be singular.

Line 114. Does the composition of VTM need to be defined?

Line 133. Virus isolation “was” attempted…

Delete “by standard methods” as the authors then describe technique and provide citation.

Line 152. Bioinformatics should be singular. Remove “result”

Line 153. Capitalize “Varsmetagen”

Lines 163 and 167. Do these reference the same thing? If so then this is repetitive.

Line 170. Should be Neighbor Joining not join

Line 185. Out of 1212 swab samples only two were positive? This seems low conceptually. Were other viruses detected and if so, how many and were the H2 viruses the only ones characterized?

Line 185 should read “a total OF 1212”

Line 225. Need scientific name after species.

Line 253. Should read …are a reservoir…

Line 265. Need scientific name

Line 273. I found estimates of 1.3 million lives lost, not millions.

Line 276. “a lot of” seems jargony. Maybe use “considerable” or some other word instead.

Line 288. Should use a citation for the Iceland work. Dusek et al. 2014.

Line 293. Needs a word after gene. Viral gene what?

Table 1 can be eliminated as it was presented in the text.

Figure legends can be revised. I suggest revising the first sentences of all figure legends to read more like “Phylogenetic analysis of the PNRJ influenza isolate HA gene” or similar. This would read better.

Figure 1 legend should be “are indicated”

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-19373R1Evidence of reassortment of avian influenza A {H2} viruses in Brazilian shorebirdsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jansen de Araujo

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.

Although I am again requesting minor corrections, I want to make clear that I believe the manuscript has progressed significantly and needs far fewer modifications than before and that I am not expecting it to need to be sent out to reviewers again. 

Regrettably, neither of the original reviewers accepted invitations to review your revised manuscript. After looking carefully at their comments and your revised manuscript I was unconvinced that all of the issues raised by referee 1 about the figure presentation and data analysis had been adequately delt with and thus chose to send it out to another reviewer. 

Referee 3 has, in my view, provided an excellent review of your revised paper as well as many good suggestions as to how you can deal with the figure presentation issues that they and referee 1 (previously) identified.

Reviewer 3 has also identified some errors in your interpretation of your phylogenetic analysis. These errors must be corrected for your article to comply with PLoS One publication guidelines so please provide detailed responses to all these comments that concern the phylogenetic analysis section of your results and make sure that all appropriate corrections are made.  

In my view, reviewer 3 has also provided very helpful advice which provides you with a clear path to the publication of your work in PLoS One. I, therefore, hope to see a revised version of your manuscript published in PLoS One in the very near future. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2024 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,

James Lee Crainey, 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.

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: Thomazelli et al. report the occurrence and genomic sequences of two influenza A viruses from wild-caught white-rumped sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis). One was an A(H2N1) virus isolated from a bird caught in Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park (PNRJ, Rio de Janeiro) and one was a A(H2N2) virus isolated from a wild caught bird inhabiting the Lagoa do Peixe National Park (PNLP, Rio Grande do Sul). DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of the recovered sequences showed each to be from different subtypes. Phylogenetic analysis also showed that while all the genomic sequence recovered from PNRJ-isolated virus was most closely related to other A(H2N1) viruses isolated from North American birds, the A(H2N2) virus genome recovered from the PNLP captured bird contained some sequences that were most closely related to viruses recovered from Iceland and North America and others that were most closely related to virus sequences recovered from birds caught in South America.

I believe the manuscript is, in general, well-organized and written in good clear easy-to-follow English and I believe the data contained in the manuscript is valuable and will be considered a welcome contribution to the field. I believe the analysis used was appropriate for the study and that the key conclusions the authors have drawn are supported by the authors data and reasonable. However, many of figures are inadequately presented and some of the interpretation of the phylogenetic analysis is incorrect. Labelling of the virus sequences and referencing of viruses is also inconsistent which makes the article unnecessarily difficult to understand in places. Below I am providing detailed comments about how I think the authors can improve their manuscript and indeed resolve their phylogenetic interpretation issues so that the authors can produce a revised manuscript that I would be delighted to recommend for publication in PLoS One.

Abstract

Overall, I feel there is insufficient information about what exactly has been found. For example, there is no mention of the fact genomic sequences for these viruses have been determined and no direct mention of the results obtained from the author´s phylogenetic analysis (only a mention of the conclusions drawn from this analysis). As PLoS One allows 300-word abstracts and the current abstract is only 169 words so there is plenty of space to provide this detail. I recommend, thus, that they expanded their existing abstract to include additional details.

Line 37: First sentence. The word “potential is redundant and should be deleted.

Introduction:

Line 84: Although I understand what the authors intend to say here, I think clarifications are needed. I suggest the sentence “Unlike most AIV subtypes, however, North American sequences can be found in both classic North America and Eurasian clades as a result of a trans-hemispheric transmission event and subsequent proliferation” should be changed to: “Unlike most AIV subtypes, however, “North American” clade sequences can be found in both classic North America and Eurasian viral genomes as a result of a trans-hemispheric transmission event and subsequent proliferation”

Line 99: Breeds should be corrected to “breed” and “migrates” to “migrate”.

Line 104: The last two sentences of the penultimate paragraph of the introduction need to be reformulated for English language clarity:

“They arrive on the southern coast of Brazil between November and January where keep together with several species such as gulls, terns, and shorebirds with directly contact, refuel, and then continue south to Patagonia. Their extensive migratory routes and susceptibility to 108 viruses emphasize their role as transcontinental vectors of avian viruses.”

Lines 111-115. The first three sentences of the last paragraph of the introduction need to be revised for clarity. I suggest changing it to something like this:

In this study, two A(H2) viruses were isolated from wild-caught white-rumped sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis). One was an A(H2N1) virus obtained from a bird caught in Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park (PNRJ, 113 Rio de Janeiro); the other, an A(H2N2) virus, was isolated from a bird caught in Lagoa do Peixe National Park (PNLP, Rio Grande do Sul) in the extreme south of Brazil.

Fig 1. There seems to be no reference to the bird migration routes shown in figure 1. I suggest adding a “(see figure 1)” to the end of the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph and providing some description of these routes in the figure caption. Alternatively, the authors could revise the figure (removing this information) and provide more information on the collection site, if this is the only purpose the figure is to serve.

Methods

Phylogenetic analysis section

Line 19: It appears that the authors used nucleotide sequence alignments (not inferred protein sequences) for the phylogenic analysis; however, they don´t make this explicit. They also state they used 8 AIV segments but do not provide the sequence alignments that they used for these trees. Including the sequence alignment would allow others to build on their study and so I recommend that they are all included in the supplementary material. Failing this, I think the authors should at least provide information of the length of the sequence alignment used to construct each of their phylogenetic trees.

Line 192: the sentence “Bootstrap was set to 1000 for statistical significance” needs to be revised for accuracy/clarity. I suggest changing to something like: “The statistical significance of phylogenetic groupings was tested with bootstrap analysis using 1000 replicates”.

Results

Sampling

Line 218: Presumably all samples were tested with the RT-PCR described in the methods section; however, I feel I would be helpful to make this explicit here in the results section.

Line 219: The reference to figure 1 at this juncture does not make sense, please delete.

Phylogenetic analysis section

Line 223: Presently reads thus: “Phylogenetic analysis of the A(H2N1) virus showed that its internal genes clustered not with those from viruses in South America, but with those of influenza viruses isolated from North America (Fig 2 and 3)”.

I think this should be revised for clarity to something like: “Phylogenetic analysis of the A(H2N1) virus recovered from the PNRJ capture bird showed that all of its internal genes clustered not with gene sequence isolated from birds sampled in South America, but with sequences of influenza viruses isolated from birds sampled in North America (Fig 2, 3, SF1-5)

Lines 241 to 250: The information provided here is not phylogenetic analysis or helpful for interpreting the authors data. I strongly recommend that it is deleted as some of it is, in fact, miss-leading. For example, a correct interpretation of the phylogenetic analysis shown in supplementary figure 5 is that the PA gene of A(H2N1) virus from PNRJ is equally closely related to a Mississippi isolated virus as it is to the California isolated virus that they report it as being most closely related to.

Lines 254 to 257: The sentence “The 255 two most phylogenetically related NA genes were from influenza viruses isolated from Northern Shovelers (Spatula clypeata) in California (99.04%) and Illinois (98.76%) (MK995843.1)(Fig 3).” Does not agree with the data presented in their figure. In their figure the virus isolated from Northern Shovelers (Spatula clypeata) in California (99.04%) is the most closely related database sequence used in their analysis. The authors own analysis shows there are seven other database sequences just as related to theirs as the Illinois sequence is. Please reformulate your comments accordingly.

Lines 258 to 261: This sentence as it is written is also miss-leading and inaccurate. I suggest it is corrected to: “Phylogenetic analysis of the A(H2N2) virus obtained from PNLP showed that its HA clustered with multiple virus isolated from with birds sampled in Iceland and North America (Fig 2).”

Lines 267 to 270: the section needs to be revise for accuracy. Deleting the text: “and the PB1 (CY149642.1) 270 and PA (CY149641.1) to and AIV isolated in Canada in 2011 (99.18% 271 and 99.14%)” from the end of the sentence could resolve this issue.

Lines 271 to 274: this sentence also needs to be modified for accuracy I suggest changing it to something like: “The NS (KX620095.1) and NP (KX620073.1) segments were most similar to Brazilian viruses also collected from Lagoa do Peixe National Park in 2012.

Discussion

Line 286: “coast are reservoir” should be changed to: “coast are a reservoir”.

Line 292: The sentence “Of note, semipalmated sandpipers also breed 293 in the southern tundra in Canada and Alaska, and winter in 294 coastal South America” seems out of place and should be deleted.

Line 325: This sentence needs to be reformulated for clarity: “There are still many gaps to be filled in our understanding of viral gene flow between the two hemispheres, but demonstrates the importance of the Atlantic route as a corridor for the movement of AIVs between North America, South America and even Europe.” I am not entirely sure what is being said here, but perhaps the sentence could be revised to something like this: “There are still many gaps to be filled in our understanding of viral gene flow between viruses circulating in the two hemispheres, but our work contributes to understanding of the importance of the Atlantic route as a corridor for the movement of AIVs between North America, South America and even Europe.”

Line 330: I think the closing sentence of the discussion is both redundant and difficult to understand. I think it should be reformulated or deleted.

Figures

Most of the figures seemed to be cropped. While this way of presenting phylogenetic results is undesirable generally, in most cases I do not believe it prevents the authors from showing their key results (i.e the phylogenetic placement of their recovered virus sequences) in this paper. It is, however, a problem for figure S4 and figure S6 where the phylogenetic placement (in a bootstrap-sported clade) of the one of the two study viruses can not be seen. Please revise all the figure captions to clarify how the images have been cropped and revise figures S4 and S6 so that PNLP isolated virus sequence in S4 can be seen in a bootstrap supported clade (and all sequences of this clade can be seen). Please also revise figure S6 similarly so that the PNRJ sequence can be seen in a bootstrap supported clade (and all sequences belonging to this clade can be seen). Also please use consistent labelling of the Matrix segment. In the text and in figure S4 it appears as only “M” but in the legend it is referred to as Matrix, without the abbreviation being highlighted. It would also be helpful in the full name of the genes were provided in all the figure captions.

**********

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 #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-19373R2Evidence of reassortment of avian influenza A (H2) viruses in Brazilian shorebirdsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Araujo,

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 Apr 19 2024 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,

James Lee Crainey, 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:

While I really do not want to delay the publication of this manuscript any further and I feel that almost all of the concerns raised by the referees have been addressed, I am afraid the manuscript still does not meet the PLOS One criteria for publication. The paper´s interpretation of some the presented phylogenetic analysis is still inaccurate. The quickest way to resolve this would be to return the newly titled “Identity and phylogenetic analysis” section to its original form i.e “Phylogenetic analysis” and to delete two sections of text:

1. Detele this passage “The PB2 gene was most closely related to an AIV isolated in Wisconsin (MT824582.1) in 2018 (99.57% identity), the PB1 to an AIV isolated in Ohio (MN430996.1) in 2018 (98.28%), the PA to the NP to an AIV isolated in Wisconsin (MK237257.1) in 2017 (97.18%), the M to an AIV isolated in North Dakota (MN253700.1) in 2015 (98.73%) and the NS to an AIV isolated in Minnesota (MN254207.1) in 2015 (98.53%) (S1- S6 Figs). The closest database entry to the HA gene came from A/blue-winged teal/Guatemala/CIP049-H121-36/2014 (H2N9), but with only 93.34% identity (MK326705.1) (Fig 2).”
2. Delete this text: “for example, the PB2 segment was most closely related to an AIV isolated in Mississippi (CY133700.1) in 2011 (98.83% identity) (supplemental material)”

If these minor changes were made, I would be happy to accept the manuscript. Alternatively, the two highlighted sections of text could be revised. If this option is chosen, the revised passages would need to be revised so that they are no longer in conflict with what is shown in the supporting figures. It is fine to say that a gene shares X% identify with another gene, but not to ok to say it is most closely related to it if that conflicts with supporting phylogenetic analysis. Also, if the methods section sub-title “identity and phylogenetic analysis” is to be preserved, I think there should be some description of how any identity analysis was performed.

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

[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.

Evidence of reassortment of avian influenza A (H2) viruses in Brazilian shorebirds

PONE-D-23-19373R3

Dear Dr. Araujo

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

James Lee Crainey, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have reviewed your latest version of your manuscript and am now satisfied that it addresses all of the reviewers concerns and that it meets PLOS One´s criteria for publication. I therefore only wish to thankyou for your patience and congratulate you all on your fine contribution to the field.

My reading of your cover letter makes  me think that the fact you have not changed the methods section subtitle “identity to phylogenetics” back to “phylogenetics” is an oversight that you will correct at the proof stage. Please feel free to make this change at the proof stage if you wish to.

Reviewers' comments: