Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 6, 2019
Decision Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor

PONE-D-19-16109

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada: A two-year surveillance study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Varga,

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.

==============================

Two reviewers have commented on the manuscript. Some minor revisions are required, particularly related to medium used and clarifications on number of isolates. Please address all points raised by the referees.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

Two reviewers have commented on the manuscript. Some minor revisions are required, particularly related to medium used and clarifications on number of isolates. Please address all points raised by the referees.

[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: The work presented in this manuscript is very relevant to our understanding of AMR in Campylobacter. The study is technically sound and the statistical analysis appropriate for the work. The study is particularly valuable as it was conducted before a change of regulation, which has now been implemented, and will represent a baseline for future work in the area. The authors have not overstated their conclusions and categorically indicate the limitations of the study.

Reviewer #2: The authors’ describe antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Campylobacter from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada. The manuscript is well written. With a few revisions, it should be acceptable for publication.

Specific comments:

Line 49: This sentence need a reference(s).

Lines 78-79: I searched for Campy-Charcoal media at Bio-Media, but could not find it. Please verify the media you used and add this to the revised manuscript.

Line 82: What does a presumptive Campylobacter colony look like? Please indicate this in the revised manuscript.

Lines 153-162: The numbers presented here are confusing and don’t add up, especially on line 157 with the game birds. Can this be rewritten to clarify the number of isolates?

Lines 230-233: Most thermophillic Campylobacter are naturally competent. However, Campylobacter restricts most foreign DNA based on methylation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855338). I don’t agree tetO can be transferred and expressed in Campylobacter from commensals. Please think about this sentence and revise.

**********

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: 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 be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

PONE-D-19-16109

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada: A two-year surveillance study

Reviewer #1: The work presented in this manuscript is very relevant to our understanding of AMR in Campylobacter. The study is technically sound and the statistical analysis appropriate for the work. The study is particularly valuable as it was conducted before a change of regulation, which has now been implemented, and will represent a baseline for future work in the area. The authors have not overstated their conclusions and categorically indicate the limitations of the study.

Reviewer #2: The authors’ describe antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Campylobacter from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada. The manuscript is well written. With a few revisions, it should be acceptable for publication.

Specific comments:

Line 49: This sentence needs a reference(s).

A reference (de Vries et al., ~11) was added as requested (Lines 49 and 360 – 363). Note that the citations and Reference List had to be updated due to the addition of this reference.

We also rewrote the sentence to make it more specific: “The transmission of antimicrobial resistant Campylobacter from commercial broiler and free-range chickens to humans has been described previously [11]” (Lines 48-49).

Lines 78-79: I searched for Campy-Charcoal media at Bio-Media, but could not find it. Please verify the media you used and add this to the revised manuscript.

The information on Campylobacter media was verified and updated as requested:

“The cecal material was directly plated onto Campylobacter Blood Free media (Bio-Media Unlimited Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada)” (Lines 78-79).

Please find the list of products available at Bio Media, as a reference:

https://www.bio-media.ca/Bio_Media/Bio_Media_Products.htm

Line 82: What does a presumptive Campylobacter colony look like? Please indicate this in the revised manuscript.

The description of a presumptive Campylobacter colony was added as requested:

“Presumptive Campylobacter colonies (i.e., yellowish-gray, translucent, round, 1-2 mm diameter, smooth to slightly mucoid) were selected (Lines 80-82).

Lines 153-162: The numbers presented here are confusing and don’t add up, especially on line 157 with the game birds. Can this be rewritten to clarify the number of isolates?

We verified that the numbers are correct and rewrote the sentence for clarification:

“Of 158 submissions tested for Campylobacter, a total of 176 isolates were recovered: 141 isolates from chicken submissions (47 pooled samples, 3 isolates recovered from each pooled sample); 21 isolates from turkey submissions (7 pooled samples, 3 isolates recovered from each pooled sample); 6 isolates from duck submissions (2 pooled samples, 3 isolates recovered from each pooled sample); and 8 isolates from game bird (pheasant and quail) submissions (3 pooled samples in total; 3 isolates recovered from each of 2 pooled samples and 2 isolates recovered from 1 of the pooled samples).” (Lines 154-160)

Lines 230-233: Most thermophillic Campylobacter are naturally competent. However, Campylobacter restricts most foreign DNA based on methylation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855338). I don’t agree tetO can be transferred and expressed in Campylobacter from commensals. Please think about this sentence and revise.

The reference (Stevenson et al., ~37) was replaced with the reference (Kim et al., ~37) (Line 235) and the sentence was revised as requested:

“Previous studies have shown that tetracycline resistance in Campylobacter is generally determined by a plasmid-encoded tet(O) gene [35], and that this resistance gene can be transferred horizontally between C. jejuni and C. coli isolates in the intestinal tract of food animals and humans [36, 37]”. (Lines 231-235).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada: A two-year surveillance study

PONE-D-19-16109R1

Dear Dr. Varga,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revisions made are satisfactory

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Iddya Karunasagar, Editor

PONE-D-19-16109R1

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada: A two-year surveillance study

Dear Dr. Varga:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Iddya Karunasagar

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 .