Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 29, 2025
Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

PONE-D-25-52951Genetic diversity, genetic population structure and epidemiology of multidrug resistance Neisseria gonorrhoeae from Kenya.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  MUKHEBI,

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 Dec 07 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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

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 PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Line 19 : "It colonizes the genitourinary tract": this is misleading as "colonize" may mistakenly indicate N gonorrhoeae is normal flora. Please correct this statement.

Lines 21-22: "Neisseria gonorrhoeae can lead to serious health complications, including disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI), pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), epididymitis in men, and adverse pregnancy outcomes(Quillin & Seifert, 2018).": The cited reference is old. The authors should introduce the co-infection between NG and other STIs and mpox, especially in the recent mpox outbreaks, to increase the significance of this study.  More references should be cited, with this one (PMID: 38793665) as an example (citing is optional).

The authors should introduce the progress of molecular testing for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, e.g., isothermal nucleic acid amplification (e.g., TMA). More references should be cited, with this one (Liu, B.M. Isothermal nucleic acid amplification technologies and CRISPR-Cas based nucleic acid detection strategies for infectious disease diagnostics. p 30-47. In Manual of Molecular Microbiology: Fundamentals and Applications; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2025.doi:10.1128/9781683674597.ch03.) as an example (citing is optional).

[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: Everything is upto mark …….

All dual publication research ethics and publication ethics

Everything is ok

Manuscript is ok

Nothing changes are required according to me

Reviewer #2: Manuscript entitled 'Genetic diversity, genetic population structure, and epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae from Kenya.' looks at the genetic characteristics of Neisseria gonorrhoeae from the

repository of genomes (72 FASTQ reads and 20 assembled genomes) and analyzed the diversity or relatedness using several tools for identification of AMR genes and have noted a high recombinant rate. A prelude to the spread of AMR. The work is conducted precisely with appropriate analytical tools to demonstrate relatedness and diversity.

However, the conclusions and predictions that have been put forward have not been backed by data.

1. There is no geographical mapping of the isolates based on their genetic markers. The isolates have originated from various parts of Kenya. But genetic groupings area-wise have not been done. This will help delineate areas with increased AMR.

2. Specific genes coding for resistance have not been highlighted to show area-wise specific antibiotic resistance.

3. No epidemiological correlation has been done.

4. No population characteristics related to genomic diversity of the strains have been looked at.

5. Detail comments have been listed by track changes in the manuscript.

The authors need to address these crucial facts for the paper to have a meaningful impact on the genetic study of MDR N. gonorrhoeae.

**********

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: Bhavneet kour

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. ​

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-52951due 23rd.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer Comment Author Response Changes Made in Manuscript (Manuscript_26_10_25_plos.docx)

1. There is no geographical mapping of the isolates based on their genetic markers. The isolates have originated from various parts of Kenya. But genetic groupings area-wise have not been done. This will help delineate areas with increased AMR. Addressed. We performed rigorous statistical analysis to confirm significant regional differences in AMR gene burden, effectively delineating "hotspots." New Statistical Analysis & Figure: Kruskal–Wallis H test: Confirmed significant variation in average AMR gene burden per isolate across regions (H = 10.87, p = 0.027).Dunn’s Post-hoc Test: Identified that isolates from Kisumu, Kombewa, and Rift Valley harbored significantly higher AMR gene counts compared to Nairobi (p < 0.05).New Boxplot: A new figure (referenced in the revised manuscript) displays AMR gene counts by region, annotated with significance bars, providing the requested geographical delineation.

2. Specific genes coding for resistance have not been highlighted to show area-wise specific antibiotic resistance. Addressed. We expanded the analysis and discussion to specifically detail the regional distribution and type of key resistance mechanisms. Expanded Results & Discussion: Western Kenya (Kisumu, Kombewa) showed a higher frequency and diversity of AMR variants, including those associated with β-lactam resistance (e.g., penA mutations) alongside core efflux and macrolide genes. Central/Coastal Kenya (Nairobi, Coastal Region) showed a tendency toward isolates carrying only the core efflux and macrolide determinants, suggesting different regional selection pressures on gene accumulation.

3. No epidemiological correlation has been done. Addressed. We performed a critical correlation analysis between genomic diversity and AMR gene burden, which is a major new epidemiological finding. New Correlation and Abstract Update: Correlation Finding: We established a clear positive correlation between high genetic diversity (π) and a significantly greater AMR gene burden. This finding is discussed as a key epidemiological mechanism: regions with higher genetic mixing are more likely to accumulate resistance genes. This finding is prominently included in the Results and Discussion sections.

4. No population characteristics related to genomic diversity of the strains have been looked at. Addressed. We performed comprehensive population characteristics analysis using nucleotide diversity. New Population Genetics Analysis: Nucleotide Diversity (π) was calculated for all isolates across regions. Regional Diversity: Isolates from Kisumu and Kombewa showed the highest π values (higher diversity/recombination), while Nairobi and Coastal isolates exhibited lower π values (more clonal populations). This analysis provides the essential population context for the epidemiological correlation detailed in point.

5. Detail comments have been listed by track changes in the manuscript. Addressed. All track changes in the original manuscript and minor suggested edits have been reviewed and incorporated into the revised manuscript. Manuscript Revisions: All identified comments and necessary text edits have been implemented in Manuscript_26_10_25_plos.docx.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer_11_7_25.docx
Decision Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

<p>Genetic diversity, genetic population structure and epidemiology of multidrug resistance Neisseria gonorrhoeae from Kenya.

PONE-D-25-52951R1

Dear Dr. MUKHEBI,

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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Benjamin M. Liu, Editor

PONE-D-25-52951R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. MUKHEBI,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Benjamin M. Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

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 .