https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9496-5660
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJuly 1, 2021 |
|---|
|
Dear Professor Thomson, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Reduced neutralisation of the Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern following vaccination" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. One of the assigned reviewers ws late and non-responsive and so I read the manuscript myself and agree with the conclusions of the Reviewer #1. I ask the authors address the issue of readability, and also please update the manuscript with references that might have published in the interim. This is also an opportunity to better contextualize what is known about the delta variant and vaccine efficacy, especially with regards to the metric of neutralization activity that is shown in this study. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the 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 [2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file). Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments. Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Benhur Lee Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Benhur Lee Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Part I - Summary Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship. Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Reduced neutralization of the Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern following vaccination” by C. Davis et al. compares the production of antibodies targeting S1 or RBD of SARS-CoV-2 and the neutralization efficacy of produced antibodies after vaccination with one or two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1. They show that the BNT162b2 vaccine induces higher antibody production compared to ChAdOx1 after a single dose as well as a double dose. Furthermore, they present reduced neutralizing activity against the mutant viruses, B 1.351, B1.617.1, and B1.617.2 compared to Wuhan-Hu-1 virus after primary and secondary immunization with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. The paper is straight-forward and provides additional information on the effectiveness of vaccination against delta mutations. However, the data is not optimally analyzed, the discussion overlong and repetitive and several references need to be introduced. These issues need to be addressed before it may be accepted. ********** Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions. Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject". Reviewer #1: 1) C. Liu also presented the reduced neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant after Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccination. Although the results fit in general to the outcomes in this study, the significantly reduced antibody neutralization ability shown in this study compared to Liu et al (2021), needs to be discussed. 2) A correlation of RBD ELISA data to the in vitro neutralization values with the different pseudotypes would be of value to the readers. It would allow to identify if the loss of neutralization is observed among people with strong antibody responses, or across the board. Likewise, xy scatterplots of Wuhan versus variant(s) neutralization titers would provide more information out of the existing dataset. 4) The discussion is in general overlong and repeats information from the results section. The discussion needs to be shortened, and include references to similar studies (C. Liu et al.), or those that have been published in the meantime since submission. The authors need to discuss the similarities and differences in the phenomena observed in this and other studies. It would be of particular interest to discuss the use of HIV pseudotypes versus VSV ones or of the native SARS CoV-2 in neutralization assays. The existence of other studies should not preclude the publication of this one, but it needs to be contextualized in light of the already available evidence. ********** Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. Reviewer #1: 1) The authors claim that the weaker antibody response of ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2 is due to the difference in the age of participants. This claim would be more convincing if the authors would provide the correlation of antibody titers and age. Furthermore, they should cite in this context a paper showing that antibody-producing ability after administration of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines decreases with age (Wall et al. 2021). 2) Line 10 in introduction: mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) is not available from April 2020. ********** 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: Luka Cicin-Sain Figure 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. 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. Data Requirements: Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols References: 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Professor Thomson, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Reduced neutralisation of the Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern following vaccination' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Benhur Lee Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Benhur Lee Section Editor PLOS Pathogens Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Professor Thomson, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Reduced neutralisation of the Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern following vaccination," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. Best regards, Kasturi Haldar Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X Michael Malim Editor-in-Chief PLOS Pathogens |
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 .