https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-7523
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 29, 2021 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Ross, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A decade of stability for wMel Wolbachia in natural Aedes aegypti populations" 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. 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, George Dimopoulos, PhD MBA Guest Editor PLOS Pathogens Raul Andino 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 entitled "A decade of stability for wMel Wolbachia in natural Aedes aegypti populations" brings relevant new information regarding the use of Wolbachia as an agent to mitigate arbovirus transmission. Although Wolbachia releases as a replacement strategy is ongoing in several countries worldwide, data on Cairns are of particular interest because it was the first place to accomplish invasion into wild Aedes aegypti populations. Reviewer #2: This is a key descriptive study for understanding the field stability of the wMel infection in Ae. aegypti, given that the Australian releases were the first completed. It offers a comparator for other more recent field release sites, some of which have struggled to exhibit the successful spread of Wolbachia. They demonstrate few fitness effects and little change in the wMel:Ae. aegypti relationship over time. They also demonstrate few genetic changes in either the Wolbachia genome or the mosquito mitochondrial genome. The fitness measures in mosquitoes carried out here are bread and butter for this lab. They have therefore been well designed, executed, analyzed statistically, and portrayed graphically. The same is true for the Wolbachia density measures and CI test crosses. The authors have been careful not to over-interpret genetic changes they have found that are likely due to sequencing errors. The article is well written. ********** 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: The manuscript reports common garden methodologies to investigate fitness cost of Wolbachia considering different mosquito genetic backgrounds, as well as other protocol such as Wolbachia frequency and density in mosquitoes, cytoplasmic incompatibility and Wolbachia/mitochondria genome sequencing. Conclusions are supported by data. Reviewer #2: None ********** 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: Although the manuscript provide new and relevant information, some additional details are required in specific sections of the manuscript. Line 77. Authors mention that in some locations, Wolbachia infection has remained at an intermediate frequency or dropped out, requiring supplemental releases. For sure, environmental, entomological and likely human behavior aspects influence this outcome. I'd recommend authors to add a few sentences in the Discussion section correlating how their lab-based results could help explaining (at least partially) the reason why some areas would still need supplemental releases to achieve a stable invasion. Line 178: In the phenotypic comparison assays, authors observed fecundity and egg hatch proportions during four consecutive gonotrophic cycle and compared data using GLMs. One of the most important assumptions of Generalized linear models is the independence among data points. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't say the number of eggs from a given gonotrophic cycle is fully independent from the previous one, especially when mosquito females are kept in cages. Line 356: On this manuscript, authors report the spatiotemporal variation of Wolbachia density in 4th instar larvae hatched from ovitraps collected across Cairns suburbs in February-March 2018. However, the research group leading this manuscript has data from older field samplings. Would still be possible to evaluate potential changes/fluctuations of Wolbachia density over this 10 years period? Or considering data already published, the use of different primers make a direct comparison not recommended? Line 398: What does it mean? Adding food ad libitum would make the water cloudy, strongly affecting rearing conditions and thus larval mortality. Line 421: Authors claim they allowed multiple generations of recovery from tetracycline treatment before start the experiments. But I understood it was for only two generations. Reviewer #2: I think the ‘Discussion’ could use an additional speculative section on why other places ‘don’t look like Cairns’. Why if this symbiont has so little effect on populations is it falling out of Vietnamese and Brazilian populations? What is known about fitness in these other regions? ********** 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 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 Dr. Ross, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A decade of stability for wMel Wolbachia in natural Aedes aegypti populations' 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, George Dimopoulos, PhD MBA Guest Editor PLOS Pathogens Raul Andino 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 Dr. Ross, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A decade of stability for wMel Wolbachia in natural Aedes aegypti populations," 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 .