https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4205-6526
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 22, 2025 |
|---|
|
-->PONE-D-25-45949-->-->Spatial distribution of ticks and tick-borne pathogens in central Hokkaido, Japan and associated ecological factors revealed by intensive short-term survey in 2024-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Matsuno, 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 17 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:-->
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, Bersissa Kumsa, DVM, MSc, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. We note that Figures 1, 2 and 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 Figures 1, 2 and 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/ 4. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <TableS1>. 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, 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. 5. We notice that your supplementary figure 1 is 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. 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: Dear Authors, The reviewers have completed their evaluation of your manuscript. I encourage you to revise and resubmit your work, ensuring that all reviewer comments are thoroughly addressed. Please incorporate the feedback carefully and provide a detailed, point-by-point response that clearly outlines every change made in response to the reviewers’ suggestions. In addition, kindly correct all typographical and grammatical errors, and ensure that the manuscript is prepared in full compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines. We look forward to receiving your revised submission. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ********** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: No ********** -->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 Reviewer #3: No ********** -->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: No Reviewer #3: 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: Summary This study conducted a short, intensive field survey (171 sites; 13 May–26 June 2024) in central Hokkaido, Japan, flagging for ticks under constant effort, pooling specimens, and screening for five pathogens. Using GLM-based ecological niche models, the authors predicted habitat suitability for seven tick species and the pathogens, checked spatial clustering via Moran’s I, applied LOOCV to validate, and quantified pathogen vector spatial overlap. Introduction The introduction section is too general; introduce specific tick species, relevant pathogens, and their public health relevance earlier. Add a proper gap statement: prior Hokkaido work has patchy coverage, and this study contributes tick, pathogen data, and comparative ENMs. Methods Strong on geography and effort standardization. However, using a single collector and a fixed 30-minute effort per site, during a short period of 43 days, could bias detectability, so acknowledge this as a limitation. Following Moran’s I, conducting Hotspot analysis & Cluster outlier analysis will point out the regions of hotspots, and add confidence to it. Results Provide AUC/TSS distributions (median, IQR) across species Discussion In discussion, don’t overstate “risk” as it creates conflicts with modeled suitability for human incidence. Please define outputs as the presence probability of infected ticks, because human behavior exposure, seasonality across the year, wasn’t measured, which limits how directly results translate to cases. Close the discussion section with two or three concrete next steps and a single sentence “so what” message, so the Discussion ends with a clear take-home. Data availability Consider releasing data, full raster outputs, and code to enable reproducibility while protecting sites. Line 136-138: More information on pools, how many pools in total, and species or genus-wise? L144–198: Pooling rules are clear; add median pool sizes per species/stage and max Ct acceptance rationale. How non-amplifying pools were handled. Line 221-223: Moran’s I being -1 should be interpreted as negative spatial autocorrelation with neighbors being very different from each other. L226–291: GLM with LOOCV is transparent, but presence/absence derived from short-term sampling risks false absences, and LOOCV can be spatially optimistic. At least add a sensitivity analysis. Explain the VIF threshold and any variable interactions. L226–256: There’s a scale mismatch (mammals 5×5 km, others 1×1 km). Discuss potential smoothing bias or add a sensitivity analysis without mammal layers. Reviewer #2: The publication by Matsuno et al. attempts to define the precise spatial distribution of two tick genera, Ixodes and Haemaphysalis, and six potentially pathogenic microorganisms associated with ticks (three viruses and two bacteria) on Hokkaido Island (Japan). The authors study the potential impact of certain environmental factors (landscape, climate, topography) and wildlife. Overall, the English needs to be revised to make the manuscript easier to read. Some concepts need to be clarified and certain points need to be improved: Introduction: • The concept of a reservoir—both for ticks (lines 47–50) and for hosts (lines 54–58)—is never clearly mentioned, yet it is essential for understanding the circulation of potentially pathogenic microorganisms. This should be defined in the introduction. • Lines 80–81: In Europe and the USA, nymphs are generally considered the highest risk. Why would adults be more at risk in Japan? • Line 95: Consider removing the adjectives “intensive” and “comprehensive” and let the reader form their own judgment. • Tick collection method: Typically, tick density is measured per unit area (e.g., per 100 m²) rather than per unit time. Why did the authors choose a 30-minute duration, which seems short? What approximate distance was covered during this time? • Tick analysis method: It appears that pools were used to test both nymphs and adults, especially for virus detection in ticks. For bacteria, a pool of 100 nymphs is extremely large. While this is explained later in the text, the “Materials and Methods” section should specify that only presence/absence was ultimately measured. • Lines 193–198: It is not clear how the ticks were genotyped for Borrelia. How were the Borrelia species identified—by genotyping targeting a specific gene, or by sequencing? • Lines 200–204: This section is unclear. Please rephrase for clarity. • Many abbreviations are used without being defined (e.g., pLDB on line 198, and throughout the Ecological Niche Modeling section: prec6, temp6, elev, angl, etc.). While these are explained in Table 1, they should also be defined in the text. I recommend moving Table 1 to the supplementary data. Results : • Increase the resolution of Table 2 by enlarging the font size. • Lines 378–380: Why were hosts not included in the analysis, given that they are essential for ticks, which are strictly hematophagous? • Table 4: Increase the resolution of the table by enlarging the font size. Discussion: • Lines 431–439: It is unclear what is actually being discussed here. Please revise. Previous studies have used presence/absence data, as in the present study. Other studies on human cases and serology in wildlife are also important and should be addressed. • Lines 452–453: It would be interesting to develop this argument further. Why does snow cover impact tick distribution? Why would Ixodes be more affected by this factor compared to Haemaphysalis? • Lines 460–461: I am truly surprised by this observation. Wildlife plays an essential role in the presence and maintenance of ticks in a given environment. Please clarify and rephrase. • Lines 483–484: I understand that ticks infected with viruses may be clustered, but this is generally not the case for Lyme Borrelia and relapsing fever Borrelia. Please clarify. Reviewer #3: The study addresses an important topic in vector ecology and provides novel data on tick and pathogen distributions in Hokkaido. The sampling effort is extensive and the integration of field data with modeling is timely. The manuscript is generally well-organized and written. However, several methodological and reporting issues need clarification or improvement before publication. Below I evaluate the scientific rigor, novelty, data interpretation, and clarity, and provide detailed comments on strengths, weaknesses, and revisions. Scientific Rigor and Methodology • Sampling Design: The authors sampled adult and nymphal ticks at 171 sites from 13 May–26 June 2024 using a standardized 30-minute flagging protocol by a single collector. This consistent, high-effort sampling across a broad area is a strength, yielding 4,608 adult and 5,300 nymph ticks from 159 sites (Table 2). The sample size is impressive and likely captures much of the regional tick diversity in spring. However, the short study period covers only late spring–early summer; tick phenology in Hokkaido may extend into autumn, and different species or life stages (e.g. larvae) might be active later. The authors should acknowledge this seasonal limitation. Site selection is not described in detail: how were the 171 locations chosen (e.g. random, stratified by habitat)? Clarification of site selection would strengthen confidence that sampling was representative and not biased toward easily accessible areas. • Pathogen Detection: Molecular screening used published RT-qPCR/qPCR assays for each pathogen. The authors provide primer/probe details and thermal cycling conditions (Methods). Using published, specific assays (e.g. Achazi et al. 2011 for TBEV, Nishimura et al. 2022 for Yezo virus) is sound. One concern is the high Ct cutoff (<45) for positives; this may risk false positives at the very end of amplification. It would help if the authors commented on assay sensitivity/specificity (for example, whether positive controls and negative controls were included) or if any PCR products were confirmed by sequencing to rule out non-specific amplification. Including standard validation (e.g. replicates, sequencing representative amplicons) would strengthen confidence in the results. • Statistical Modeling (Ecological Niche Models): The methods section lacks detail on the ENM procedure. It is not specified how absences or background data were chosen (e.g. were non-detection sites treated as absences?), nor which software or R packages were used. The variable selection process is unclear – did they start with all 18 covariates and use stepwise selection? Were collinearity or variance inflation assessed? The brief mention of applying “spatial smoothing” for some models is not explained. For reproducibility and rigor, the authors should provide more information: the modeling algorithm (e.g. GLM with binomial link), criteria for choosing best-fit models, and any preprocessing (e.g. standardizing variables, assessing correlations). As noted in the literature, SDMs for ticks require careful standardization and reporting. The manuscript would benefit from clarifying these steps. If possible, sharing the model code or parameters (e.g. in a supplementary file or repository) would help transparency. A major concern is the small number of positive samples for some pathogens. For example, only 7 pools were positive for TBEV and 8 for Yezo virus. Fitting a reliable habitat model on such few presences is challenging and may lead to overfitting. The authors should discuss this limitation. In particular, note that with many zeros (true negatives) and few positives, standard logistic regression may produce unstable coefficients. Did the authors aggregate pathogens into genus-level (e.g. “all Borrelia”) or model each pathogen separately? It appears each pathogen was modeled individually (Table 4 shows separate D/I values), which could be under-powered for rarer pathogens. More discussion of model confidence is warranted. Despite this, the authors do report model performance metrics, which suggests at least some predictive signal. • Environmental Covariates: The inclusion of habitat (forest, grassland), topography (elevation), climate (temperature, snow depth) and host presence is comprehensive. The finding that annual maximum snow depth strongly influenced tick distributions (positively for Ixodes ticks, negatively for Haemaphysalis) is plausible given Hokkaido’s climate. However, snow depth did not enter pathogen models. The manuscript suggests this may indicate complex “interactions” between snow and pathogen cycles. This interpretation is reasonable but a bit speculative; it might reflect that pathogens depend on host factors not captured by snow alone. The negligible effect of wild mammal distributions in models is likely due to the coarse (5×5 km presence/absence) host data. The authors correctly note that finer-scale host data are needed to assess these effects. Overall, the choice and handling of covariates seems sound, but more detail on how each was processed (e.g. how snow depth was measured or averaged) should be added. • Statistical Analysis: Beyond ENMs, the authors calculated Schoener’s D and Warren’s I to quantify niche overlap between each pathogen and each tick species (Table 4). This is appropriate for comparing spatial distributions. They also computed Moran’s I for clustering. These analyses are straightforward and correctly interpreted (e.g. low overlap D between most viruses and ticks implies distinct distributions). Their results that I. persulcatus and I. ovatus have the highest overlap with all pathogens (D,I up to ~0.95 for LDB) are consistent with prevalence data (see below). Statistical methods are adequately applied, but the manuscript should ensure that all reported p-values and thresholds are explained (e.g. what is a “significant” Moran’s I). Data Interpretation and Conclusions The authors’ interpretation of results is generally sound and well-supported by the data. Overall, the conclusions follow logically from the results. One area for improvement is to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of pathogen sample sizes when interpreting model outputs. For instance, predictions for TBEV and Yezo virus (each <10 positives) should be treated with caution. But the authors generally provide a balanced discussion, citing relevant literature (e.g. stable TBEV foci vs emergent YEZV foci) to contextualize their findings. In summary, I find the study potentially suitable for publication after major revision. The authors should clarify their modeling methods, ensure compliance with data-sharing policies, and address the points listed above. With these revisions, the manuscript would represent a strong contribution to tick-borne disease ecology. ********** -->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: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Nathalie BOULANGER 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
-->PONE-D-25-45949R1-->-->Spatial distribution of ticks and tick-borne pathogens in central Hokkaido, Japan and associated ecological factors revealed by intensive short-term survey in 2024-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Matsuno, 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 Apr 11 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:-->
-->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, Stephen M. Rich, MS, PhD 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 particular, Reviewer #3 has included several comments suggestions in the annotated manuscript. Please reply to those concerns. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: The authors have made substantial revisions in response to the reviewers’ comments, and I am satisfied that the manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend this manuscript for publication. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents valuable data and a well‑structured ecological modeling framework; however, several important methodological, statistical, and reporting issues remain and require substantial revision before the study can meet PLOS ONE standards. Detailed, line‑by‑line and section‑by‑section comments have been provided in the attached document, including notes on sampling design limitations, PCR confirmation procedures, spatial cross‑validation, model interpretation, data availability, and English‑language clarity. Please address all points in the attached review document in your next revision. ********** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Makwarela Tsireledzo Goodiwill ********** [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. -->
|
| Revision 2 |
|
-->PONE-D-25-45949R2 Spatial distribution of ticks and tick-borne pathogens in central Hokkaido, Japan and associated ecological factors revealed by intensive short-term survey in 2024-->-->PLOS One--> Dear Dr. Matsuno, 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 see the annotated list of edits/corrections that I have compiled. Please make these changes in your manuscript. Note that throughout the manuscript, articles ('the,' 'a,' 'an') are occasionally missing, particularly before singular countable nouns. This is common in writing by non-native English speakers and should be checked systematically (I may have missed some instances). Also, while passive voice is acceptable in scientific writing, some passages become difficult to follow due to excessive passive constructions. Consider revising key sentences to active voice for clarity. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 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:
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, Stephen M. Rich, MS, PhD 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: This is a well-structured ecological study with valuable data on tick and tick-borne pathogen distributions. The methodology is sound and the findings are scientifically significant. However, the manuscript still requires attention to grammar, usage, and clarity—particularly subject-verb agreement, article usage, and some awkward phrasings. Below is a list of issues organized by location. Title and Short Title Line 15 (Short title): "tic k-borne" → "tick-borne" (spurious space) Abstract Lines 35–38: The phrase "the predicted suitable habitats were specific to each pathogen/tick species" is somewhat awkward. Consider: "the predicted suitable habitats differed among pathogen and tick species." Introduction Line 49–50:"infect to humans and domestic animals" → "infect humans and domestic animals" (delete "to") Line 50–51:"are reservoirs of the tick-borne pathogens, which are responsible for harboring them for long period" → "are reservoirs of tick-borne pathogens, harboring them for long periods" (delete "the"; "period" → "periods") Line 57–58:"not only amplifying pathogens to transmit to ticks" → "not only by amplifying pathogens for transmission to ticks" (clearer construction) Line 60:"understanding on associations among" → "understanding of the associations among" Line 65:"In example" → "For example" Line 74:"the circulation of tick-borne pathogens are indirectly affected" → "the circulation of tick-borne pathogens is indirectly affected" (subject-verb agreement: "circulation" is singular) Line 79:"climatic and biological characters" → "climatic and biological characteristics" Line 88:"while BJNV distributes widely" → "while BJNV is distributed widely" or "while BJNV is widely distributed" Methods Tick sampling Line 140:"Study period was set from" → "The study period was set from" (add article) Line 137–138:"To confirm that the investigated sites randomly located across" → "To confirm that the investigated sites were randomly located across" (add "were") Definition of presence/absence Lines 229–231:"pathogen present if ≥1 positive pool; the others sites were absent sites" → "pathogen present if ≥1 positive pool; all other sites were classified as absent" (clearer; "others" → "other") Line 231:"for this definition for tick to ensure" → "for this definition for ticks to ensure" (plural) Spatial clustering Line 257:"Z-vales" → "Z-values" (typo) Ecological niche modeling Line 313:"Ecological niche modelling was performed" — Note inconsistent spelling: "modelling" (British) vs. "modeling" (American) used elsewhere. Choose one and be consistent throughout. Line 331:"a manual forward and backward stepwise" → "a manual forward and backward stepwise procedure" or "manual forward and backward stepwise selection" Line 337:"performance package [45].When" → "performance package [45]. When" (add space after period) Line 356:"Finaly" → "Finally" (typo) Results Prevalence section Line 381:"suggested that the 171 investigated sites located randomly" → "suggested that the 171 investigated sites were located randomly" Table 3 Line 439:"Supplementary Table 3" → Should this be "Supplementary Table S4"? (inconsistent with other references) Model performance section Line 483–484:"(Moran's I test, p > 0.05) was detected... (Supplementary Table S5)." — The period after the parenthetical creates a fragment. Revise: "No significant spatial autocorrelation (Moran's I test, p > 0.05) was detected in the residuals of the final models (Supplementary Table S5)." Predicted suitable habitats Line 503:"predicted to have a high presence probability of H. japonica despite containing multiple absent sites of these species" → "...of this species" (H. japonica is singular) Line 510:"BJNV have suitable habitats" → "BJNV has suitable habitats" (subject-verb agreement) Discussion Lines 533–534:"There are many studies tried to reveal" → "Many studies have tried to reveal" Line 546:"the distribution of vector tick species only partially represent" → "the distribution of vector tick species only partially represents" (subject-verb agreement) Line 552:"the yearly snow depth has a consistent influence" → Consider: "yearly snow depth has a consistent influence"(article usage with abstract quantity) Line 554:"The positive effect of snow depth on Ixodes ticks can result from the increased overwinter survival by snow accumulation" → "The positive effect of snow depth on Ixodes ticks may result from increased overwinter survival, as snow accumulation protects them from..." (clearer causation) Line 557:"the previous reports in Japan[28,55]" → "previous reports in Japan [28,55]" (add space before bracket; remove "the") Line 557:"snow depth decreases abundance of sika deer" → "snow depth decreases the abundance of sika deer" Line 561:"It was not significant in the single regression for TBEV, YEZV, and RFB, neither" → "It was not significant in single regression analyses for TBEV, YEZV, or RFB either" ("neither" → "either" at end of negative clause; "analyses" for clarity) Line 564:"rarely influential to either ticks and tick-borne pathogens" → "rarely influential for either ticks or tick-borne pathogens" ("and" → "or" with "either") Line 569:"Uptodate" → "Up-to-date" or "Updated" Line 583:"isolated form tick samples" → "isolated from tick samples" (typo: "form" → "from") Line 593:"species is spatially clustered due to" → "species are spatially clustered due to" (or "a species is spatially clustered") Line 596:"Actually, H. flava is more frequently collected" → "Indeed, H. flava is more frequently collected" ("Actually" is often considered informal) Line 598–600:"H. japonica should be strictly prevented from moving between the suitable habitats" — This phrasing is unclear. Do you mean the tick's dispersal is limited? Consider: "H. japonica appears to be restricted from dispersing between suitable habitats" Line 603:"Nishino et al. (2024) has reported" → "Nishino et al. (2024) reported" (simple past for citing literature; or "have reported" if treating as plural) Line 619:"We could not be entirely ruled out false positives" → "We could not entirely rule out false positives" Line 624:"this choice may not escape criticism for being spatially optimistic" — Consider: "this choice may be criticized as spatially optimistic" (more direct) Conclusions Line 640:"primary ticks to determining distribution" → "primary ticks for determining the distribution" or "primary ticks determining the distribution" General comments The word "respectively" appears frequently and is sometimes used incorrectly (when there is no clear one-to-one correspondence). Review each instance and retain only where genuinely matching paired items. Throughout the manuscript, articles ("the," "a," "an") are occasionally missing, particularly before singular countable nouns. This is common in writing by non-native English speakers and should be checked systematically. While passive voice is acceptable in scientific writing, some passages become difficult to follow due to excessive passive constructions. Consider revising key sentences to active voice for clarity. Several instances of extra or missing spaces near punctuation and citations (e.g., "[28,55]" vs. " [28,55]"). Standardize throughout. • "tick-borne" should always be hyphenated when used as a compound adjective • "short-term" should be hyphenated when preceding a noun [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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. --> |
| Revision 3 |
|
Spatial distribution of ticks and tick-borne pathogens in central Hokkaido, Japan and associated ecological factors revealed by intensive short-term survey in 2024 PONE-D-25-45949R3 Dear Dr. Matsuno, 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, Stephen M. Rich, MS, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-45949R3 PLOS One Dear Dr. Matsuno, 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. Stephen M. Rich 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 .