Dear Dr.  Wen,

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 30 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.

• 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,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Anhui Provincial Health Commission Scientific Research Project”

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.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

6. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file renamed_2709f.xlsx and renamed_424be.xlsx. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your submission. In addition to addressing the reviewers’ comments, please attend to the following editorial revisions to strengthen the clarity and consistency of your manuscript:

1. Manuscript Formatting : Please ensure that the revised manuscript includes line numbers and page numbers throughout to facilitate efficient review.
2. Scientific Nomenclature : The species name Escherichia coli should be italicized wherever it appears in the manuscript. Specifically, correct formatting is needed in:
   • Line 1 and line 3 of the Introduction
   • Line 1 of the Methods
   • All subsequent occurrences throughout the manuscript
3. Discussion Section : Please avoid restating results in the Discussion section. Instead, focus on interpreting your findings, offering potential explanations, and discussing how they compare or contrast with previously published studies. This will help contextualize your contributions more effectively.
4. Limitations : A concise summary of the key limitations of your study should be added as the final paragraph of the Discussion section. This enhances transparency and provides a foundation for future research directions.
5. Conclusion : Please incorporate a standalone Conclusion section. It should:
   • Summarize the key findings of your study
   • Present recommendations or implications based on your results in the final paragraph

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: INTRODUCTION

The introduction is logical and flows well. The prevalence/epidemiological context are clearly stated. Also, the clinical relevance is well established. However, the followings should be clarified.

1. Clarity. “Under certain circumstances”. Specify some of the circumstances e.g., immunosuppression or catheterization.

2. Quantitative specification. “UTI is considered the second common cause of infectious diseases” …. Reference and state specific epidemiological data or global incidence rankings to support this claim.

3. UTI classification. … “UTI is classified as a complex and non-complex” … Add a brief definition of what constitutes a complex UTI for clarification to the readers.

4. Terminology precision. “Parenteral pathogenic” is a bit confusing. Change this to “extra intestinal pathogenic” if referring to UPEC’s ability to cause infections outside the gut.

5. Closing statement. … “to reveal their drug resistance and clinical epidemiological characteristics”. This can be ended with a stronger and precision phase such as “with the goal of guiding effective antimicrobial treatment plan and public health intervention”.

6. … “admitted from January 2023 to December 2023” …. Specify if this is a multicenter study or single hospital dataset.

METHODS

Ethics

1. Break into clearer sentences

2. Ensure formal tone and compliance with international ethics reporting standards.

For example, “This study included Escherichia coli isolates cultured from urine samples of hospitalized patients between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Xuancheng City People's Hospital (Approval Number: 2022-pjky005-01). Written informed consent was not required as the study used bacterial isolates collected as part of routine clinical care, and all patient data were anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis”.

Experimental procedure

1. Improve on the grammar and flow.

2. Change typographical error “form” to “from” (patients form 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023).

Bacterial culture

The opening sentence is unclear. Remove or rewrite if it must be there.

Streamline method steps for clarity.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

1. Correct grammar and punctuations

2. Ensure tense consistency (past tense).

3. Clarify statistical methods and match with international reporting standards.

4. Ensure consistency in units (e.g. μL)

5. Spacing and software naming

RESULTS

General situation of research subjects

1. Clarity and formality

1. Use precise and formal phrasing e.g. subjects to patients/cases.

Statistical test to statistical analysis.

2. Avoid redundancy e.g. “statistical results show….. which is statistically significant is repetitive.

2. Numerical reporting

1. Report p-values consistently with standard formatting (e.g. P = 0.252, do not write in italics).

2. Remove parentheses around mean ± SD values except required.

3. Terminology consistency

I would suggest using hospital-acquired and non-hospital acquired infections instead of “in-hospital” and “out-of-hospital” for standardization.

4. Grammar and style

1. Improve sentence flow and eliminate awkward phrasing.

2. Clarify confusing logic. E.g. P>0.05 was significant. This contradicts standard significance thresholds. In other words, this does not signify significance, yet the statement claims the opposite. Confirm the intended meaning and adjust accordingly.

Drug susceptibility

1. Manufacturer name error. “Merrier” should be corrected to bioMérieux.

2. Redundancy and flow. The phrase ‘Escherichia coli exhibited high sensitivity to. Most antibiotics with rates exceeding 80% and some surpassing 90%...” is a bit repetitive. Group antibiotics into classes for better readability.

3. Scientific tone

1. Change drug sensitivity to antimicrobial susceptibility for precision.

2. State clearly which findings require clinical caution e.g. low fluoroquinolone sensitivity.

3. Ensure that drug abbreviations (e.g., AMK, ETP) are defined.

4. Highlight any multidrug resistance patterns briefly.

DISCUSSION

1. Grammar and language use

1. Rewrite the multiple redundant constructions

2. Inconsistent verb tenses (e.g. it was found that… to is...)

3. Change this phrase … “bacteria detection time to e.g. time to detection” for clarity.

2. Scientific tone and structure

Change the informal expressions to professional tone e.g. face more difficult anti-infection….

3. Statistical reporting. Use consistent phrasing for P-values and avoid redundancy.

4. Content clarity

1. The connection between biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance could be more directly and clearly explained.

2. Clarify the contrast between your findings and previous literature where appropriate.

Did you encounter any limitation in this study? If yes, indicate them.

REFERENCES

Ensure all references (e.g., [13] – [28]) are accurately cited in the reference list.

Reviewer #2: 1. Re-frame the title. Avoid the repeated use of characteristics

2. 2nd paragraph, Line4…” 40% of hospital infections” - do you mean hospital acquired infections? Clarify

3. Same paragraph: The most common gram-negative bacteria is Enterobacteriaceae, mainly E. coli, and Staphylococcus is mainly among Gram-positive bacteria. Replace ‘is’ with are. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) is a group of parenteral pathogenic Escherichia coli should be italicized

4. The subtitle “Experimental procedure” is perhaps more appropriately expressed as laboratory testing

5. Still under the same subtitle…“using the VITEK 2 Compact system of the French company Merrier).” Shorten it like......VITEK 2; Merrier). Also apply to other parts of the manuscript where this occurs.

6. Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases- first use insert (ESBL) after it

7. “Hospitalization time” define; explain

8. “in-hospital infection and out-of-hospital infection.” Define these terms.

9. “characteristics of the infected population (including gender, age, hospitalization time, etc.)” Time of the year) not given. This will give temporality to the epidemiological data given

10. Bacterial culture- could be changed to: Sample culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing of isolates

11. “Research on bacterial culture and drug sensitivity test methods” – Delete

12. Under subtitle Statistical analysis “This study uses SPSS23.0” uses should be in the past tense. This should be applied across the methods section. English improvement is generally needed.

13. Checkout time in Table 1 should be defined

14. Under the subtitle “In-hospital infection and out-of-hospital infection” the first statement is a repetition. Delete

15. Subtitle “A Drug susceptibility of 401 cases of Escherichia coli”: make it simpler. As in: Drug susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolates

16. May wish to reframe “In contrast, quinolones like levofloxacin (LEV) exhibited the lowest sensitivity rate at 21.9%, warranting heightened attention from clinicians.” As: “Quinolones such as levofloxacin (LEV) exhibited the highest resistance rate to our isolates rate at 78.1% warranting heightened attention from clinicians.” To emphasize the resistance

17. Table 2: Clinical characteristics of 401 patients under different infection conditions. Delete” under different infection conditions”. Compute and add %s in the table

18. Table 3: Sensitivity rates of various antibiotics of 401 cases of Escherichia coli. Again, shorten and make simpler. Provide legend below giving the full name of the abbreviations in the table

19. intra-hospital and out-of-hospital infections – uniformity in terminologies used in essential. Is this the same as “in-hospital infection and out-of-hospital infection” used elsewhere in the text. It’s confusing.

20. “showed significant differences between different infected groups, and the difference was statistically significant detailed data.”. English usage issues

21. In the fourth paragraph under discussion, the statement “However, compared with the situation in European countries, the drug resistance rate of Escherichia coli to compound trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole has decreased in several European countries (17, 18).” There seems to be no comparison. Perhaps another English challenge.

22. The limitations of the study were not listed or discussed.

23. The very last but long last statement requires English editing.

Reviewer #3: The authors of this paper have identified an opportunity to correlate retrospective hospital case data, samples in a hospital biobank with hospitalization records for urinary tract infection as a result of Escherichia coli. The authors intended approach to associate the antibiotic susceptibility profiles for the E.coli strains and their corresponding Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase status with hospitalization cases and perhaps source of infection is a unique perspective, which if properly articulated can allow hospital systems develop protocols to reviewing antibiotic use or discontinued use within hospital systems.

The authors have however not clearly articulated their thoughts in the current report. The paper will benefit from a major revision across all sections of the paper from abstract to discussion. In the current state, the paper is hard to follow, requiring major editorial input. Some quick but not exhaustive list of highlights below.

This paper will benefit majorly from a total revamp and editorial assistance for grammar and consistency in readability.

**********

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

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments .docx

Dear Dr. Wen,

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 03 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.

• 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 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,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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: 

In addition to addressing the reviewers' comments, please revise the abstract to follow a structured format with the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. The final paragraph of the abstract’s Introduction section should clearly articulate the study’s aim.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all the comments; corrected and incorporated the suggested comments and the manuscript reads better and is technically sound. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded to the issues raised.

While the term "non-hospital acquired infection" now being used is OK, changing it to the commonly used community acquired infection will make the paper more searchable and visible as well as increase comparability.

Though they did include limitations as requested, the first limitation stated can be deleted: since the apparent aim of the study is to study "the clinical characteristics of Escherichia coli in urinary tract infection and guide empirical treatment," studying only Escherichia coli derived from the urinary tract infection as opposed to from other organs cannot be a limitation. The remaining limitations can be improved for better readability.

If permitted by the editors, structuring the abstract will give it more clarity and readability especially making clear the aim of the study.

**********

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:  Foluso Ayobami Atiba

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

Dear Dr. Wen, 

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 28 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.

• 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 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,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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:

Thank you for your thoughtful revisions to the manuscript. Please review the abstract to ensure clarity and smooth flow. Kindly remove the subtitle “Limitations” and incorporate that content into the final paragraph of the Discussion section. Also, check the spelling of E. coli —make sure there is a space between “E.” and “coli.” Lastly, please add a period "." to the final sentence of the Discussion section.

Thank you again for your efforts.

[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.

Clinical epidemiological characteristics and antibiotic sensitivity of Escherichia coli urinary tract infection

PONE-D-25-28510R3

Dear Dr. Wen,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: