Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 7, 2026
Decision Letter - Elisabetta Pilotti, Editor

-->PONE-D-26-05473-->-->A snapshot of HIV-1 genetic diversity in Dominican Republic in 2024: predominance of the BCar lineage and first description of a CRF02-AG isolate-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Pujol,

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.

The authors have shown solid evidence and achieved compelling conclusions. Minor concerns arise from the need to broaden the descriptions of methods and results and to delve deeper into the data discussion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elisabetta Pilotti

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by funding from MinCyT, Venezuela.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“MinCyt”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“MinCyt”

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.

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Francisco Urena.

6. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Francisco Ureña.

7. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

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?

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->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: No

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: In this study, Soto et al provide a snapshot of the present (2024) circulation of HIV-1 subtypes and lineages in the Dominican Republic. The authors observed that the subtype B, and particularly the BCAR lineage, is still predominant in Dominican Republic, although recombinant forms appear sporadically in the island. This study provides novel and interesting information about current HIV-1 genetic diversity in the Caribbean region. Some data, however, should be better described and discussed in order to provide more solid conclusions.

1) The authors must describe the criteria used to select the reference sequences for determining the subtype and lineage of each fragment via phylogenetic analyses. Additionally, the accession numbers of all subtype B and CRF02_AG reference sequences should be provided as supplementary data.

2) The authors should describe the statistical test of phylogenetic branch support and the threshold use to define a highly supported clade.

3) While the authors distinguish between the POL and INT regions, it is more appropriate to refer to the first region as PR/RT rather than POL, as the integrase (int) gene is actually part of the polymerase (pol) coding region.

4) The authors state that for the VIF region, most of the sequences from the BCAR lineage were grouped into a clade, while other sequences from the same lineage formed independent clades inside the BPANDEMIC lineage. However, even the BCAR clade identified did not achieve significant branch support. Consequently, neither this region nor NEF enabled a clear discrimination between the two subtype B lineages and should not be used to discriminate between them.

Reviewer #2: The authors need to make minor changes for possible publication. Authors must make minor revisions for potential publication. Authors must specify the ethics approval number and the name of the ethics committee. The remaining comments can be found in the file titled "Reviewer comments".

**********

-->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: Gonzalo Bello

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: REVIEWER COMMENTS....pdf
Revision 1

Caracas, April 4, 2026

Dr. Yuri Khudyakov

Editor. PLos ONE

Dear Dr. Khudyakov:

Please find enclosed our revised version of our manuscript entitled: “A snapshot of HIV-1 genetic diversity in Dominican Republic in 2024: predominance of the BCar lineage and first description of a CRF02-AG isolate" by Lily Soto, Yoneira F Sulbaran, Rossana C Jaspe, Francisco Ureña, Yoel Garcia, Carmen Luisa Loureiro, Héctor R Rangel, and Flor H. Pujol, to be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. The paper consists of 17 pages, one table, 3 figures, 4 supplementary tables and 2 supplementary figures. This manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

We have revised the manuscript according to the constructive comments of the reviewers. A revised version, with the edition highlighted in red, is also provided.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely,

Flor Helene Pujol, Professor, Head.

Lab. de Virología Molecular

CMBC. IVIC. Apdo 20632

Caracas 1020-A. Venezuela

e-mail: fhpujol@gmail.com

Reviewer #1: Dr. Gonzalo BELLO

In this study, Soto et al provide a snapshot of the present (2024) circulation of HIV-1 subtypes and lineages in the Dominican Republic. The authors observed that the subtype B, and particularly the BCAR lineage, is still predominant in Dominican Republic, although recombinant forms appear sporadically in the island. This study provides novel and interesting information about current HIV-1 genetic diversity in the Caribbean region. Some data, however, should be better described and discussed in order to provide more solid conclusions.

Thank you for your comment. We hope to have addressed these comments adequately.

1) The authors must describe the criteria used to select the reference sequences for determining the subtype and lineage of each fragment via phylogenetic analyses. Additionally, the accession numbers of all subtype B and CRF02_AG reference sequences should be provided as supplementary data.

The reference sequences were selected allowing the inclusion of sequences from isolates from different countries. For the CRF02-AG isolate, in addition, a Blast analysis was performed for both the complete genome sequence and the POL region to include the most similar sequences in each phylogenetic tree. This information was included in lines 120-125. The list of Accession numbers is now included in S2-4 Tables as suggested.

2) The authors should describe the statistical test of phylogenetic branch support and the threshold use to define a highly supported clade.

Bootstrap values (statistical test of phylogenetic branch support) over 70 were considered to define a highly supported clade. This information was included in line 128.

3) While the authors distinguish between the POL and INT regions, it is more appropriate to refer to the first region as PR/RT rather than POL, as the integrase (int) gene is actually part of the polymerase (pol) coding region.

Thank you for your comment. POL was substituted by PR/RT throughout the text as suggested.

4) The authors state that for the VIF region, most of the sequences from the BCAR lineage were grouped into a clade, while other sequences from the same lineage formed independent clades inside the BPANDEMIC lineage. However, even the BCAR clade identified did not achieve significant branch support. Consequently, neither this region nor NEF enabled a clear discrimination between the two subtype B lineages and should not be used to discriminate between them.

Thank you for your comment. The limitations of the VIF region for assigning the lineage were included in lines 157-159, line 163 and line 168.

REVIEWER #2: Dr. Christian MANGALA

The authors need to make minor changes for possible publication. Authors must make minor revisions for potential publication. Authors must specify the ethics approval number and the name of the ethics committee. The remaining comments can be found in the file titled "Reviewer comments".

Thank you for your comments. The Ethics approval number was included for the DR document in line 83; it was already included for the Venezuelan document.

This manuscript is titled: ". A snapshot of HIV-1 genetic diversity in Dominican Republic

in 2024: predominance of the BCar lineage and first description of a CRF02-AG isolate",

address an important topic from the perspective of the molecular epidemiology of HIV-1 in the Dominican Republic in 2024. However, the manuscript presented by the authors requires minor revisions for improvement.

Thank you for your comment. We hope to have addressed the comments adequately.

Abstract

Please specify the type, location, and period of the study. Also specify the techniques used.

The type, location and period of the study, in addition to the techniques used, were included in Abstract, lines 29-32.

Introduction

Line 47: The authors must clearly specify the four groups, that is to say M, O, N and P.

The groups were specified in line 48, and the spill over events in lines 50-51.

Materials and Methods

- Authors must specify the type and location of studies.

The locations were specified in lines 77-78.

- Please provide the ethics clearance number issued by the ethics committee of the Dominican Republic.

The Ethics approval number was included for the DR document in line 83; it was already included for the Venezuelan document.

- The “Materials and Methods” section should contain subsections for better clarity.

The subsections were included.

- Please place the “Ethical Considerations” section after the “Conclusion” section.

The section was included (Lines 269-272).

Results

The “Results” section should include subsections for clarity.

Subsections were included in Results.

The figures are not of good quality; authors must submit legible and clear figures.

We apologize for supplemental Figure 2, for which the accession numbers are not legible because of the number of sequences. The list of these accession number is now included in Supplemental Table 4.

Conclusion

Authors should include a “Conclusion” section for clarity.

A Conclusion section was included as suggested (lines 256-267).

References

Authors must harmonize the list of references, taking into account the standard required by the journal (e.g., number of authors).

The references were edited in concordance to the guidelines.

Decision Letter - Elisabetta Pilotti, Editor

A snapshot of HIV-1 genetic diversity in Dominican Republic in 2024: predominance of the BCar lineage and first description of a CRF02-AG isolate

PONE-D-26-05473R1

Dear Dr. Pujol,

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,

Elisabetta Pilotti

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I suggest the authors remove the adjective "descriptive" before "study", as written in the abstract at line 29.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Elisabetta Pilotti, Editor

PONE-D-26-05473R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Pujol,

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. Elisabetta Pilotti

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 .