Dear Dr. Oceguera-Figueroa,

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 15 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,

Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas, 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [This project was partially funded by the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica IN215722 of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PAPIIT-UNAM). The Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (DGAPA-UNAM) provided financial support to E.L.E. through a postdoctoral fellowship. The Secretaría de Ciencias, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI) supplied a grant scholarship (No. 812903) to K.M.L.T. (No. CVU: 1165342) and financial support through the Investigadoras e Investigadores por México program to V.I.V. (No. project 538).].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This project was partially funded by the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica IN215722 of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PAPIIT-UNAM). The Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (DGAPA-UNAM) provided financial support to E.L.E. through a postdoctoral fellowship. The Secretaría de Ciencias, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI) supplied a grant scholarship (No. 812903) to K.M.L.T. (No. CVU: 1165342) and financial support through the Investigadoras e Investigadores por México program to V.I.V. (No. project 538).]. 

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. 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.

6. 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.

7. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. 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. 

9. 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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Prevalence, etiology, and transmission of fibropapillomatosis in Olive Ridley turtles at a mass-nesting colony in the Mexican Pacific” is well-written and presents a sound methodology. The study successfully addressed all its objectives, which is essential for a high-quality scientific paper.

My main concern with the manuscript is the use of a pie chart, which could be replaced with a bar chart, for instance, to improve clarity. Additionally, the reference list includes a large number of sources published more than ten years ago and relatively few from the past five years. I recommend that the authors revise the bibliography and consider removing outdated references that are not strictly necessary.

Finally, I congratulate the authors on this valuable contribution to sea turtle conservation.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-written, with an appropriate methodology and a solid discussion. However, some methodological points need to be detailed, and a few parts of the discussion could be improved.

ABSTRACT

The abstract is excellent; it just needs a final concluding sentence to summarize the main finding.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction is a bit long, but I would not change it because it contains a lot of interesting information that helps the reader understand the study's scope. In lines 148 to 153, it would be beneficial to add the prevalence of the disease in the mentioned locations, so the reader can understand whether the prevalence is high or low in this species.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Materials and Methods section is good but requires more detail in some parts.

1- In lines 189-192, please cite Table 1, which contains the estimated population size. I felt the absence of this information at this point.

2- Please explain in more detail how the beach was monitored during collections. Was it monitored every day? What times were the collections made? Was the patrol done on foot or with a vehicle (e.g., ATV)? How many people participated in the monitoring?

3- What specific non-toxic paint was used? Were the animals also tagged, or were they only identified with the paint?

4- From what part of the body was the tissue sample obtained (e.g., neck, flipper)?

5- How was the blood collected? Was it during or after nesting? Was an anticoagulant used? In what type of tube was the blood stored after collection?

6- How were the tumors collected? Was the entire tumor collected, or just a piece? Was there a preference for smaller tumors, which the literature suggests have a higher viral load?

7- What is the prevalence of leeches on the turtles? Can you estimate this, or at least indicate if they are commonly found on the turtles or if they are rare? This information would be interesting to the discussion (e.g., viral transmission).

8- Was only one leech collected from each animal, or were more than one collected?

RESULTS

Congratulations on the large sample size of turtles examined. The effort you made is commendable, even with a large population in the area.

1- In lines 320-321, it says 22 tissue samples, with 9 being blood and 14 being tissue (9 + 14 = 23). Please double-check this information.

DISCUSSION

The discussion needs some adjustments.

1- Line 451: What was the sample size of the 1988 study? Including this information is important to understand how many animals were sampled and to be able to confidently state that the prevalence has decreased.

2- Lines 453-455: Was the site monitored before this? It would be good to have information on how long this population has been monitored to be able to state that there were no cases before then.

3- Lines 464-468: The comparison made here is unfair, as it is known that green sea turtles are the most affected species and therefore have the highest prevalence. Additionally, juveniles also have a much higher prevalence than adults. Either remove this part of the discussion or compare it with other nesting areas of the olive ridley turtle. If you don't find many studies on olive ridleys, try comparing them with other species, but from nesting areas, not foraging areas. Only then will you be able to support the information in lines 470-472.

4- Lines 479-480: Are the green sea turtles mentioned here juveniles? If so, it is more relevant to compare them with adults of the same species or, if there are no articles available, with adults of other species.

5- Lines 487-490: Again, are the green sea turtles juveniles? It's always good to make this information clear because it makes a big difference. The discussion would be much better and interesting if it compared between species in nesting areas.

6- Lines 501-502: What are the "other tissues" (2 of 2)?

7- Line 507: There is a typo: "god" standard should be "good" standard.

8- Topic "viral DNA detection in nesting olive ridley females": What do these findings reveal, considering the prevalence of fibropapillomatosis found? Even with a low sample size of tissue from healthy turtles, the prevalence of the virus was high. Could this be related to the environment they live in or the animals' health?

9- Line 536: With which turtle species and in which location was the study conducted that found 90% viral detection in leeches?

10- Could the low viral detection also be related to the small number of leeches sampled?

11- I missed a final concluding paragraph summarizing the main findings.

**********

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: Yes:  Camila Miguel

**********

[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

Prevalence, etiology, and transmission of fibropapillomatosis in Olive Ridley turtles at a mass-nesting colony in the Mexican Pacific

PONE-D-25-37483R1

Dear Dr. Oceguera-Figueroa,

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,

Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript was significantly improved after the review round. The authors provided detailed and satisfactory responses, and the modifications implemented completely addressed all concerns from the first assessment. I recommend Acceptance for Publication as it stands.

**********

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: Yes:  Camila Miguel

**********