Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya

Hellen Koka; Solomon Langat; Samuel Oyola; Faith Cherop; Gilbert Rotich; James Mutisya; Victor Ofula; Konongoi Limbaso; Juliette R. Ongus; Joel Lutomiah; Rosemary Sang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310862

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 27, 2024
24 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, Editor PONE-D-24-20220 Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koka, 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 Aug 08 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, Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, D.V.M., 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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission: a. 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].” 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 review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Review of ‘Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya’ The study looked at the detection of a novel virus belonging to the Bandavirus genus in Amblyomma ticks and humans in Kenya. The study is interesting. The study however does not include its limitations. I noted following limitations in the study. Although a large number of ticks were tested, only in one pool the novel virus was detected, whereas the in human population more than 38% has serological evidence of the virus. I found that the cut-off titre for seropositives was quite low. According to me, I would have only considered titres from 1:160. Little is also discussed about cross-reactivity with other viruses and false positives. I do not know what is the sensitivity and specificity of the plague reduction virus neutralization test. This information should have been included in the methods and limitations should have been discussed at the end of the manuscript. In addition, the study would have had more power if the samples from ticks came animals that were owned/herded by the humans that were samples. As far as I understood the samples were from same counties but tick and human samples were not linked to same location. In addition, it would have provided more insight if also animals were sampled. This should have been included as limitations of the study. Suggestion are made that the novel virus can cause the same symptoms of humans as the related Guertu virus but yet it seems although evidence of past infection was find in a high number of humans but yet those people were healthy at the time of sample. Although the sample size is small, I find it odd that the conclusion was made that the virus could cause serious disease in humans yet there was no evidence because people were health although had been infected previously based on serological evidence. The route of exposure is also not well understood yet. Are humans exposed through adult Amblyomma ticks from accidental close contact with cows or are do they acquire infection from the immature stages directly from environment. For example African tick bite fever is transmitted more likely from the immature stages of Amblyomma ticks. I think above issues and limitations could be added and discussed in the paper. For the remainder, I think this is a very interesting paper. Reviewer #2: This study isolates and characterizes a type of novel Bandavirus. Experiments to determine its pathogenicity as well as prevalence in humans were performed. The virus could have potentially important health consequences in humans. Authors perform rigorous experimental methods and conclude that this virus is closely related to Guertu virus within the genus. This is an important paper that needs to be published. I have added minor comments in a marked up text. ****** 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-24-20220_SBM.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r001
Revision 1
24 Jul 2024 Author Response PONE-D -24-20220 Dear Editor, Thank you for the review comments. Please find below responses to the reviewers and editors comments. Regards, Hellen Koka RESPONSES TO REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS 1. Review of ‘Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya’. The study looked at the detection of a novel virus belonging to the Bandavirus genus in Amblyomma ticks and humans in Kenya. The study is interesting. The study however does not include its limitations. I noted following limitations in the study. Although a large number of ticks were tested, only in one pool the novel virus was detected, whereas the in human population more than 38% has serological evidence of the virus. Response: That we found one pool testing positive for the virus at the time, for us was exciting. The number of detections of a virus often depends on its level of circulation at the point of sampling, which is influenced by factors that are not known to us at this point in time, Line 363-366. Detection of one positive pool for us is a very important finding and evidence of circulation of this virus in our region. Serologic evidence of circulation represents possible cumulative exposure of the population over time, an important additional finding. This finding opens opportunity for further in-depth surveillance when funding is available. We also tested an additional pool of 200 tick from this region by PCR but did not detect the novel virus again, Line 184 and Line 267. 2. I found that the cut-off titre for sero-positives was quite low. According to me, I would have only considered titres from 1:160. Little is also discussed about cross-reactivity with other viruses and false positives. I do not know what is the sensitivity and specificity of the plaque reduction virus neutralization test. This information should have been included in the methods and limitations should have been discussed at the end of the manuscript. Response: The cut-off titre for sero-positivity of this novel virus was retained at 1:20 and since the samples were not tested against other viruses in the Bandavirus genus, no cross-reactivity was reported. There are no known circulating Bandaviruses locally that we could consider for cross-neutralization, Line367-368. The sensitivity and specificity are above 70% and is the reason plaque reduction test is considered a gold standard. 3. In addition, the study would have had more power if the samples from ticks came from animals that were owned/herded by the humans that were samples. As far as I understood the samples were from same counties but tick and human samples were not linked to same location. Response: This suggested sampling plan would have been ideal. The limitation is addressed, Line 366-369. It was after the virus was detected, isolated and characterized that the serologic analysis was considered. For this reason, the human samples were not linked directly to the exact location/herd where the tick samples had been collected. However, some of the human samples were collected from the general locality where the ticks were collected, Fig 1, Line 118 and Line 124. Further, the target communities are largely nomadic and often move through wide areas in search of pasture and water creating potential for movement of animals and ticks over a wider space. This pastoral system thus increases the potential for pathogen transmission in the region. This is also supported by the fact that; the human samples had been collected along the animal migratory routes used by the pastoralists in this region. 4. In addition, it would have provided more insight if also animals were sampled. This should have been included as limitations of the study. Response: Due to the scope of the research and level of funding for the work, no animals were sampled, and this has been captured as a limitation of the study. This initial funding opens opportunity for seeking more funding for such additional studies as suggested by the reviewers, Line 374-377. 5. Suggestion are made that the novel virus can cause the same symptoms of humans as the related Guertu virus but yet it seems although evidence of past infection was found in a high number of humans but yet those people were healthy at the time of sample. Response: The symptoms caused by this virus are not known. There is need for further studies to determine symptoms associated with acute infection of this virus. At this time, we can only speculate that this novel virus may cause similar course of infection as Guertu or Dabie bandavirus (SFTSV), Line 371-374. The suggestion has been made to promote awareness among clinicians in our region to enhance the index of suspicion as they review patients, Line 352-353. 6. Although the sample size is small, I find it odd that the conclusion was made that the virus could cause serious disease in humans yet there was no evidence because people were healthy although had been infected previously based on serological evidence. Response: Please refer to the response in point 5. Although, the symptoms are not known, the virus was also shown to infect mice and thus we speculate that the virus may have potential to cause disease in humans, Line 346-348. 7. The route of exposure is also not well understood yet. Are humans exposed through adult Amblyomma ticks from accidental close contact with cows or are do they acquire infection from the immature stages directly from environment. For example, African tick bite fever is transmitted more likely from the immature stages of Amblyomma ticks. I think above issues and limitations could be added and discussed in the paper. Response: The route of exposure is not well understood, it could be through the bite of the tick or through handling of infectious materials from infected animal, Line 334-338. 8. For the remainder, I think this is a very interesting paper. Response: We appreciate the review comments and the concerns raised which we have used to improve the manuscript. Thank you. RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2 COMMENTS 1. This study isolates and characterizes a type of novel Bandavirus. Experiments to determine its pathogenicity as well as prevalence in humans were performed. The virus could have potentially important health consequences in humans. Authors perform rigorous experimental methods and conclude that this virus is closely related to Guertu virus within the genus. This is an important paper that needs to be published. I have added minor comments in a marked-up text. Response: We thank reviewer number 2 for the specific comments on the document that were very valuable in improving the manuscript. We have done our best to respond to all of them. Thank you. RESPONSES TO EDITORS COMMENTS 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 Response: These guidelines have been met 2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. Response: Additional information has been provided for experiments involving animals. Line 214-217 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process Response: Data sharing plan revised 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Response: Ethics statement was added, Line 131-133. 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. Response: The map was created from the ARC GIS software by Samuel Owaka and details are provided under the figure caption for Fig 1. 6. 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 Response: The references were formatted and checked for completeness. One reference was added, Line 482. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers comments Plos one July 2024 .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r002
19 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, Editor PONE-D-24-20220R1 Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, KenyaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koka, 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 03 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, Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, D.V.M., M.Sc., 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: Authors should address the issue raised by Reviewer #1 in Section 6. Review Comments to the Author (below). [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: Thanks for addressing the comments I had diligently and adding a limitations section. I have just one small comment re: line 305-307, I recommend to use seroprevalence/seropositivity instead of prevalence because the humans were tested by serology. Thanks for this interesting study. I accepted the revised manuscript for publication. Reviewer #3: I reviewed the revisions and noted that all of them have been addressed satisfactorily. The paper presents novel information required to be published. ****** 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 #3: Yes: Samoel Ashimosi Khamadi ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r003
Revision 2
30 Aug 2024 Author Response Editor in Chief PLOS One 26th August 2024. Thank you for the review of the manuscript entitled: “Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya.” The issues raised by the editor has been addressed and below is the responses to the comments. RESPONSES TO EDITORS COMMENTS 1. 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission: Response: Thank you for this comment. The maps were not copyrighted. I have edited the caption to Figure 1 as follows; These maps were generated courtesy of Samuel Owaka using ArcGIS Version 10.2.2 (http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap) advanced license. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers comments Plos one 30 Aug 2024 .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r004
4 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, Editor PONE-D-24-20220R2 Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koka, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Kindly address the issue raised by Reviewer 1 concerning the use of the word "prevalence" on Lines 305 - 307 of the revised manuscript: "I recommend to use seroprevalence/seropositivity instead of prevalence because the humans were tested by serology". I recommend that you replace "prevalence" with "seroprevalence" on Line 305 and in the title of Table 1. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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, Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, D.V.M., M.Sc., 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. [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r005
Revision 3
5 Sep 2024 Author Response 5th September 2024 Editor in Chief PLOS One Thank you for the review of the manuscript entitled: “Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya.” The issues raised by the editor have been addressed and below is the responses to comments. RESPONSES TO REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS 1. Thanks for addressing the comments I had diligently and adding a limitations section. I have just one small comment re: line 305-307, I recommend to use sero-prevalence/sero-positivity instead of prevalence because the humans were tested by serology. Thanks for this interesting study. I accepted the revised manuscript for publication. Response: The revision of the word prevalence to sero-prevalence / sero-positivity was done, Line 305-307. We appreciate your review comments as they greatly improved this manuscript. Thank you. RESPONSES TO EDITORS COMMENTS 1. 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. Response: The references were checked for completeness Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers comments Plos one 5 Sep 2024 (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r006
8 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, Editor Detection and prevalence of a novel Bandavirus related to Guertu virus in Amblyomma gemma ticks and human populations in Isiolo County, Kenya PONE-D-24-20220R3 Dear Dr. Hellen Koka, 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 Editorial Manager® 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, Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, D.V.M., M.Sc., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r007
Formally Accepted
12 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu, Editor PONE-D-24-20220R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koka, 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 Professor Daniel Oladimeji Oluwayelu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310862.r008

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 .