Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2021
Decision Letter - Dong-Yan Jin, Editor

PONE-D-21-04793

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Konishi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Both reviewers like your paper and they have asked for some clarifications. Please respond and return your paper as soon as possible.

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 20 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dong-Yan Jin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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.

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.We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[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 manuscript is well-written. The authors use prinicipal component analysis and show that the evolution of human- and mink SARS-CoV-2 differs completely. In addition real-life data from the Netherlands and Denmark indicate that mink variants are less lethal and infective.

The authors suggest that mink-variants may be used for development of vaccines and therfore advise against culling of mink.

The findings in this paper is very important, but also controversial and political hot stuff. In Denmark it is still debated whether or not the culling of 17 millions mink was the right decision.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and informative study. I have few comments and I request the author to clarify the comments.

1) It's not clear how the author derived the following results "Some mink-derived variants infected humans,

which accounted for 40% of the total SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Netherlands". The author presented this result in the "Introduction" of the main manuscript and then presented these as a part of results in the Abstract. Reading the article -- I didn't understand how the author derived the figure. Please clarify this.

2) In method the author mentioned "The axes were identified using 103 mink-virus and 6092 human-virus that were

proportionally selected from each continent. These data may be comparable to 130

million animals; since the mink population is estimated to be 50 million... ,".

How 103 minus 6092 human were comparable to 130 million animals? What does 130 million animals refers?

3) The author used abbreviation of worlds which need elaborated especially in figure legends and methods which now stands alone.

**********

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: Carsten Schade Larsen

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Najmul Haider, Postdoctoral Researcher, Royal Veterinary College, United Kingdom

[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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well-written. The authors use prinicipal component analysis and show that the evolution of human- and mink SARS-CoV-2 differs completely. In addition real-life data from the Netherlands and Denmark indicate that mink variants are less lethal and infective.

The authors suggest that mink-variants may be used for development of vaccines and therfore advise against culling of mink.

The findings in this paper is very important, but also controversial and political hot stuff. In Denmark it is still debated whether or not the culling of 17 millions mink was the right decision.

I appreciate this comment. I tried to contact Danish officials. However, mink farming was banned in the country and the mink population was culled. The variants that could have supplemented the deficient vaccine were destroyed.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and informative study. I have few comments and I request the author to clarify the comments.

1) It's not clear how the author derived the following results "Some mink-derived variants infected humans, which accounted for 40% of the total SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Netherlands". The author presented this result in the "Introduction" of the main manuscript and then presented these as a part of results in the Abstract. Reading the article -- I didn't understand how the author derived the figure. Please clarify this.

I rewrote the paragraph adding explanations concerning Fig. 1C, especially for the group indicated by the circle in the figure. I hope this improves the readability of the passage.

2) In method the author mentioned "The axes were identified using 103 mink-virus and 6092 human-virus that were

proportionally selected from each continent. These data may be comparable to 130

million animals; since the mink population is estimated to be 50 million... ,".

How 103 minus 6092 human were comparable to 130 million animals? What does 130 million animals refers?

I regret this shortage. I added an explanation by using an equation.

3) The author used abbreviation of worlds which need elaborated especially in figure legends and methods which now stands alone.

I appreciate the comment. The revised version includes the Materials and Methods section. A summary of all the abbreviations is included. Finally, I tried to find a replacement for DECIPHER, but it seems that this is rather a unique noun.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Dong-Yan Jin, Editor

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

PONE-D-21-04793R1

Dear Dr. Konishi,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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,

Dong-Yan Jin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Dong-Yan Jin, Editor

PONE-D-21-04793R1

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

Dear Dr. Konishi:

I'm 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 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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

Professor Dong-Yan Jin

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 .