Increased thermal suitability elevates the risk of dengue transmission across the mid hills of Nepal

Bipin Kumar Acharya; Laxman Khanal; Meghnath Dhimal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322031

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 11, 2024
11 Dec 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r001
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor PONE-D-24-56974Increased thermal suitability Elevates Risk of Dengue Transmission Across the Mid Hills of NepalPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ACHARYA, 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. ==============================Dear Authors, This manuscript is in need of a major revision; for instance, some sentences need clarification, the reference should be cited in a consistent format, and the methods should be clear enough to allow this work to be reproducible. Please kindly address the concerns of our reviewers in order to enhance the quality and clarity of your work. Thank you!============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the online submission form, you indicated that the geospatial dataset including MODIS LST, grided population data, shapefile of Nepal are open access and can be freely downloaded . While the geolocation data of dengue occurence will be made avaiable upon the resonable request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 3.We note that Figures 1, 4, and 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 4, and 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: This study was utilized Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite land surface temperature data (MOD11A2) and a temperature dependent mechanistic model to predict the monthly suitability and its changing pattern for dengue transmission in Nepal from 2000 to 2020 for both mosquito vectors, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. This study estimated the population at risk of dengue based on different lengths of the transmission season. The results from this study could be a model for dengue management and vectors control in Nepal and other dengue endemic countries. However, there are some comments for this manuscript to address as follows: 1. Citations of the references should follow the author guidelines of PLOS ONE. Most of the citations presented as author name and year, but some citations presented as the number. For examples, the references on Page 9, Lines 195-196, “…………including sea surface temperature reconstruction [55–57],………, on Page 10, Lines 230 and 233………the calculation and interpretation of R0 [24–28]. and …………equilibrium prevalence [29–31].” Please check the citation of references according to the author guidelines of PLOS ONE. 2. The term “dengue fever” and “dengue” have different meaning. The meaning of “dengue fever” is the degree of disease severity whereas “dengue” stands for disease occurring by dengue viral infection. Please revise the following sentences and other sentences. a. On Page 3, Lines 61-62, “Currently, there are no effective vaccines or specific therapies available to curb the rapid global spread of dengue fever (Simon-Lorière et al., 2017). b. On Page 5, Line 139, “This study aimed to assess the thermal suitability for dengue fever in Nepal and analyze……….” 3. The introduction part should be shorten, concise, and has supporting information relevant to the rational of the study. For example, “A land surface temperature (LST) as low as 13.8 °C in winter has been identified as critical for Ae. aegypti larvae, potentially leading to their near disappearance in subtropical regions of Taiwan during the East Asian winter monsoon (Tsai et al., 2018) on Page 3, Lines 80-82.” and “An LST of 13.8 °C in winter has been identified as critical for the survival of Ae. aegypti larvae (Tsai et al.,2018).” On Page 4, Lines 87-89. These two sentences have similar meaning. 4. Figure 1 has four major physiographic zones, but Siwalik and Tarai have the same number of 4. However, on Page 6, Lines 152-154, “Nepal is divided into five major physiographic zones- Tarai (below 600 m), Siwalik (100–2000 m), Hill (200–3500 m), Middle Mountain (700–4100 m) and High Mountain (1800–8800 m) (LRMP, 1986).” 5. Materials and Methods : a. Page 8, Lines 173-174, “………(R Development Core Team)”, the statistical program R should be cited correctly. b. Page 8, Line 179, “………we extracted TIF layers from originally supplied HDF file, ….” The abbreviation for file type should be cited as full name, then followed by abbreviation. c. Page 8, Lines 174-178, “The MOD11A2 is 8-day averaged LST product derived from MOD11A1 (Z. Wan, 2015). The MODA1 is daily LST product derived by computation from two adjacent thermal infrared bands, 31 and 32. The product contains both day and night-time surface temperature bands and their quality indicator (QC) layers. MOD13A2 includes one LST of day and one LST of night which in some sense represent the maximum and minimum temperature of the 24-hour.” Which The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite land surface temperature data (MOD11A2, MOD11A1, MOD13A2) was used in this study? These are confusing to the readers. d. Page 9, Lines 208-209, ……….entire study period into two phases, 2000–2010 (the period of dengue emergence in Nepal) and 2010–2020 (the period of rapid expansion in Nepal).” and Table 1. The study period are divided into two phases, but the time frame for each period are over-lapping. Please state clearly. e. Page 10, Line 224, the formula and descriptions of each parameters should be precise. These are confusing to the readers. 6. Results : a. Page 15, Line 327, “…………….observed in” Please check. b. All values in percentage should be systematic, i.e., one or two decimal points. c. Page 16, Lines 355-356, “This proportion was lower in 2010; 88.76% for Ae. aegypti mosquito and 93.43% Ae. albopictus.” But Table 2 show these data in the year 2000. Please check. 7. Discussion : Please add limitation of the study. These are all issues raised for this manuscript and major revision is needed. Reviewer #2: An interesting project and well-written manuscript. Just a few points to note and include: 1. typing error - Line 465 2. Can include discussion the limitations of DINEOF method. 3. Can include introduction in the role of microclimate on the development of both vector species. 4. Impacts of other meteorological factors other than temperature. 5. Specific suggestions for the health authority to control dengue transmission. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Vipa Thanachartwet 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r002
Revision 1
13 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1 This study was utilized Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite land surface temperature data (MOD11A2) and a temperature dependent mechanistic model to predict the monthly suitability and its changing pattern for dengue transmission in Nepal from 2000 to 2020 for both mosquito vectors, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. This study estimated the population at risk of dengue based on different lengths of the transmission season. The results from this study could be a model for dengue management and vectors control in Nepal and other dengue endemic countries. Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for a detailed review of the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. We have followed your suggestions on revising the manuscript and also made point-by-point responses to all the comments. However, there are some comments for this manuscript to address as follows: 1. Citations of the references should follow the author guidelines of PLOS ONE. Most of the citations presented as author name and year, but some citations presented as the number. For examples, the references on Page 9, Lines 195-196, “…………including sea surface temperature reconstruction [55–57] ,………, on Page 10, Lines 230 and 233………the calculation and interpretation of R0 [24–28]. and …………equilibrium prevalence [29–31].” Please check the citation of references according to the author guidelines of PLOS ONE. Response: Thank you very much for pointing this error. We have revised all the citations and references according to the guidelines of PLOS ONE. 2. The term “dengue fever” and “dengue” have different meaning. The meaning of “dengue fever” is the degree of disease severity whereas “dengue” stands for disease occurring by dengue viral infection. Please revise the following sentences and other sentences. a. On Page 3, Lines 61-62, “Currently, there are no effective vaccines or specific therapies available to curb the rapid global spread of dengue fever (Simon-Lorière et al., 2017). b. On Page 5, Line 139, “This study aimed to assess the thermal suitability for dengue fever in Nepal and analyze……….” Response: We apologize for this error. We agree to you on this matter of dengue and dengue fever. We have made necessary corrections. 3. The introduction part should be shorten, concise, and has supporting information relevant to the rational of the study. For example, “A land surface temperature (LST) as low as 13.8 °C in winter has been identified as critical for Ae. aegypti larvae, potentially leading to their near disappearance in subtropical regions of Taiwan during the East Asian winter monsoon (Tsai et al., 2018) on Page 3, Lines 80-82.” and “An LST of 13.8 °C in winter has been identified as critical for the survival of Ae. aegypti larvae (Tsai et al.,2018).” On Page 4, Lines 87-89. These two sentences have similar meaning. Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have shortened the introduction section retaining the intended message. 4. Figure 1 has four major physiographic zones, but Siwalik and Tarai have the same number of 4. However, on Page 6, Lines 152-154, “Nepal is divided into five major physiographic zones- Tarai (below 600 m), Siwalik (100–2000 m), Hill (200–3500 m), Middle Mountain (700–4100 m) and High Mountain (1800–8800 m) (LRMP, 1986).” Response: Sorry for this error in the legend of figure 1. Tarai should have been labeled as 5. We have corrected it. 5. Materials and Methods : a. Page 8, Lines 173-174, “………(R Development Core Team)”, the statistical program R should be cited correctly. Response: Thank you. We have updated the citation. b. Page 8, Line 179, “………we extracted TIF layers from originally supplied HDF file, ….” The abbreviation for file type should be cited as full name, then followed by abbreviation. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the full names for those abbreviations. c. Page 8, Lines 174-178, “The MOD11A2 is 8-day averaged LST product derived from MOD11A1 (Z. Wan, 2015). The MODA1 is daily LST product derived by computation from two adjacent thermal infrared bands, 31 and 32. The product contains both day and night-time surface temperature bands and their quality indicator (QC) layers. MOD13A2 includes one LST of day and one LST of night which in some sense represent the maximum and minimum temperature of the 24-hour.” Which The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite land surface temperature data (MOD11A2, MOD11A1, MOD13A2) was used in this study? These are confusing to the readers. Response: We used MOD11A2 for extracting the temperature variables and downstream analyses. We included the description of the data generation and processing by the satellite sensors. These information are available in the data source (https://lpdaac.usgs.gov) which is cited in the manuscript. Hence, we removed this description from the manuscript. d. Page 9, Lines 208-209, ……….entire study period into two phases, 2000–2010 (the period of dengue emergence in Nepal) and 2010–2020 (the period of rapid expansion in Nepal).” and Table 1. The study period are divided into two phases, but the time frame for each period are over-lapping. Please state clearly. Response: We apologize for this error. We have analyzed data from the beginning of 2001 to the end of 2020. Therefore, it has been updated accordingly. “………………entire study period into two phases, 2001–2010 (the period of dengue emergence in Nepal) and 2011–2020 (the period of rapid expansion in Nepal)” e. Page 10, Line 224, the formula and descriptions of each parameters should be precise. These are confusing to the readers. Response: Thank you. We have revised it and tried making it clearer to the readers. 6. Results : a. Page 15, Line 327, “…………….observed in” Please check. Response: Sorry for the incomplete sentence. We have added the missing information to the sentence. b. All values in percentage should be systematic, i.e., one or two decimal points. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have maintained two decimal points for the percentage throughout the manuscript. c. Page 16, Lines 355-356, “This proportion was lower in 2010; 88.76% for Ae. aegypti mosquito and 93.43% Ae. albopictus.” But Table 2 show these data in the year 2000. Please check. Response: We apologize for this error. It should have been 2010, not 2000. We have corrected it. 7. Discussion : Please add limitation of the study. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The last paragraph of the discussion section discusses about the empirical and methodological limitations of this study. Please refer to the last paragraph of the revised manuscript. These are all issues raised for this manuscript and major revision is needed. Response: Thank you very much for these important suggestions and corrections. We appreciate your contributions for the improvement of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: An interesting project and well-written manuscript. Just a few points to note and include: Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you for the comments and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. We have revised it following your suggestions and also made point-by-point responses as follows: 1. typing error - Line 465 Response: Thank you. We have rectified it. 2. Can include discussion the limitations of DINEOF method. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the limitation of the study including that of DINEOF method on the last paragraph of the discussion. 3. Can include introduction in the role of microclimate on the development of both vector species. Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. Temperature and humidity are the two major microclimatic conditions affecting the development of Aedes species. We have discussed them in the background section. 4. Impacts of other meteorological factors other than temperature. Response: Meteorological factors other than temperature might also have impacts on dengue transmission. Therefore, we have discussed this in the limitation section of the discussion and suggested to consider other 5. Specific suggestions for the health authority to control dengue transmission. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added following recommendations at the end of the conclusion section- “Dengue control and management within Nepal should be improved through evidence based interventions by focusing on regions at elevations between 500–1500 m and urban centers which have the most significant growth of thermal suitability and population exposure risk to dengue transmission within the past two decades.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_jan30.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r003
10 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor PONE-D-24-56974R1Increased thermal suitability Elevates Risk of Dengue Transmission Across the Mid Hills of NepalPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ACHARYA, 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. ============================== This manuscript has presented good scientific work; however, there is still room for improvement to make it clearer and easy to grasp. Please proofread the manuscript carefully and revise any unclear sentences, as suggested by our reviewers, to ensure a smooth reading experience for the audience. Thank you! ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: All issues raised by reviewers have been addressed. Interestingly, this study could be a model for dengue management and vectors control in dengue endemic countries. Reviewer #3: - Overall, this manuscript has shown excellent scientific work, covering the data from 2001 to 2020. However, I have some minor concerns to improve its quality. Here are my comments: - (page 3, lines 55-57) this statement, “It has been a leading public health challenge worldwide causing approximately 390 million ...”, also shares similar ideas to a study by Masyeni et al. entitled “Cytokine profilesin dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A study from Indonesia”. Kindly cite this article to strengthen the statement. - (page 17, lines 370-371) I suggest that authors rewrite this sentence into "Elevation is a key determinant of the spatial distribution of temperature-sensitive arboviral diseases." to make it clearer. - (page 3, lines 70-71) this sentence “However, thermal extremes can negatively impact disease dynamics…” will be more significant if it’s also supported by another relevant study. For example, Ahmad K and Chiari W. Metal oxide/chitosan composite for organic pollutants removal: A comprehensive review with bibliometric analysis. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Vipa Thanachartwet 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r004
Revision 2
11 Mar 2025 Author Response Reviewer #3: - Overall, this manuscript has shown excellent scientific work, covering the data from 2001 to 2020. However, I have some minor concerns to improve its quality. Here are my comments: - (page 3, lines 55-57) this statement, “It has been a leading public health challenge worldwide causing approximately 390 million ...”, also shares similar ideas to a study by Masyeni et al. entitled “Cytokine profilesin dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A study from Indonesia”. Kindly cite this article to strengthen the statement. Reply: Thank you so much for your comment. We found that the suggested literature is concerned with cytokine dysregulation in dengue fever and is a study from Indonesia alone. It does not accommodate our statement of dengue as a public health challenge worldwide. The literature we have cited for this statement are of global coverage and authentic. Therefore, unfortunately, we opted not to cite the suggested literature. - (page 17, lines 370-371) I suggest that authors rewrite this sentence into "Elevation is a key determinant of the spatial distribution of temperature-sensitive arboviral diseases." to make it clearer. Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the sentence as you suggested. - (page 3, lines 70-71) this sentence “However, thermal extremes can negatively impact disease dynamics…” will be more significant if it’s also supported by another relevant study. For example, Ahmad K and Chiari W. Metal oxide/chitosan composite for organic pollutants removal: A comprehensive review with bibliometric analysis. Reply: Thank you so much for your comments. The suggested paper focusing on organic pollutants removal is irrelevant with this very manuscript focusing on the effects of environmental temperature rise on dengue transmission. Therefore, we could not cite it. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers_11 March.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r005
17 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor Increased thermal suitability Elevates Risk of Dengue Transmission Across the Mid Hills of Nepal PONE-D-24-56974R2 Dear Dr. ACHARYA, 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, Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Harapan Harapan, Editor PONE-D-24-56974R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Acharya, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Harapan Harapan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322031.r007

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 .