Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Apr 22;18(4):e0011390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011390

Development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays

Matthew A Knox 1,*, Collette Bromhead 2, David TS Hayman 1
Editor: Elvina Viennet3
PMCID: PMC11065202  PMID: 38648254

Abstract

Assay validation is an essential component of disease surveillance testing, but can be problematic in settings where access to positive control material is limited and a safety risk for handlers. Here we describe a single non-infectious synthetic control that can help develop and validate the PCR based detection of the viral causes of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Ebola virus disease, Lassa fever, Marburg virus disease and Rift Valley fever. We designed non-infectious synthetic DNA oligonucleotide sequences incorporating primer binding sites suitable for five assays, and a T7 promotor site which was used to transcribe the sequence. Transcribed RNA was used as template in a dilution series, extracted and amplified with RT-PCR and RT-qPCR to demonstrate successful recovery and determine limits of detection in a range of laboratory settings. Our results show this approach is adaptable to any diagnostic assay requiring validation of nucleic acid extraction and/or amplification, particularly where sourcing reliable, safe material for positive controls is infeasible.

Author summary

The majority of zoonoses originate in wildlife and tend to emerge from biodiverse regions in low to middle income countries, frequently among deprived populations of at-risk people with a lack of access to diagnostic capacity or surveillance. Diseases such as Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Rift Valley fever, Ebola virus disease, Marburg virus disease and Lassa fever are viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) and rank among the most neglected and serious threats to global public health. This threat is partly due to the severity of disease caused by these pathogens, but also because their geographical distribution is close to human populations with often limited access to medical or diagnostic laboratory services. In our study we describe techniques for PCR based detection of five VHF viruses using a synthetic, multi-target non-infectious positive control. Our work has applications in assay design and optimization, particularly where access to source material is problematic or requires high level biosafety containment, as is the case with VHF viruses. This approach can help learners train in techniques used in nucleic acid extraction, amplification, and sequencing of VHF viruses and can be used for any targets, with potential for multiplexing from a single positive control.

Introduction

Medical advances including access to healthcare and sanitation have reduced infectious disease mortality and morbidity globally. However, infectious diseases remain a significant burden to many of the most deprived people in the world, and emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are serious public health threats, as evidenced by the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 [1]. Most recorded human EIDs are zoonotic in origin, meaning they emerge from animals and cross the species barrier to infect humans. Factors that lead to EID emergence include socioeconomic factors, land use change, and urban population growth [25]. The majority of zoonoses (e.g. ~72% [3]) originate in wildlife and tend to emerge from biodiverse regions in low to middle income countries (LMICs) and frequently among deprived populations of at-risk people with a lack of access to diagnostic capacity or surveillance [6]. The recent global pandemic of monkeypox virus highlights the diagnostic issue further [7]; the virus that causes Mpox (monkeypox), an endemic zoonosis in West and Central Africa emerged locally, possibly in Nigeria, went undetected until it was detected in Europe [7].

Diseases such as Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), Rift Valley fever (RVF), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Marburg virus disease (MVD) and Lassa fever (LF) are viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) and are among the most neglected and serious threats to global public health. This is in part due to the severity of disease caused by these pathogens, but also because their geographical distribution is close to human populations with often limited access to medical or diagnostic laboratory services. The large West African EVD outbreak beginning in 2013 was likely able to establish during the months after the first case because early cases were not detected in areas poorly served by diagnostic services [8]. There is therefore an urgent need to develop tools and in-country training methods for surveillance and diagnosis for both people and wildlife hosts for the VHFs [9]. Accordingly, we designed an assay for training purposes in Leon Quist Ledlum Central Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Liberia as part of a WOAH (then OIE) twinning program to support personnel in surveillance methods for VHFs in animal hosts (https://rr-africa.woah.org/en/projects/ebo-sursy-en/).

Numerous PCR based diagnostic assays exist for the viral agents of these VHFs [1015] providing valuable tools in disease surveillance and diagnosis. This relevance of PCR based approaches for clinical diagnosis, research and surveillance is despite the increasing use of rapid diagnostic tests, which typically have lower sensitivity and specificity compared to PCR, and because they are host-species agnostic, so able to be applied to samples from any species [16]. However, there are difficulties in training personnel, particularly for VHFs and pathogens that are both rare and highly pathogenic [1719]. Developments in synthesizing nucleic acids, however, allow the synthesis of non-infectious control material for safe handling, including in low resource settings [20,21]. Here, we designed synthetic DNA oligonucleotide sequences incorporating primer binding sites suitable for five VHF (CCHF, RVF, EVD, MVD, LF) causing viruses including a T7 promotor site to transcribe the sequence to enable RNA synthesis and provide positive control material for all laboratory steps from nucleic acid extraction to detection. We tested the sensitivity of extraction using both RT-PCR (endpoint PCR) and RT-qPCR (quantitative PCR), including from samples simulated with spiked feces. In addition, since access to refrigeration and cold storage is often not possible in field settings, we assess the stability of reagents for amplification after storage at ambient temperature over a one-week time course.

Methods

VHF Control Vector

A 1,000 bp DNA fragment was designed by generating random nucleotide sequence and embedding previously published primer binding sites [1015] within the sequence at positions designed to amplify the target amplicon size for each assay. The fragment contained primer binding positions for the amplification of five negative strand RNA viral pathogens, comprising three viruses from the order Bunyavirales: Orthonairovirus haemorrhagiae (Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV), family Nairoviridae)), Mammarenavirus lassaense (Lassa virus (LV), family Arenaviridae)), and Phlebovirus riftense (Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV), family Phenuiviridae)), and two viruses from the order Mononegavirales: Orthoebolavirus zairense (Ebola virus (EBOV), family Filoviridae)) and Orthomarburgvirus marburgense (Marburg virus (MARV), family Filoviridae)) (Fig 1, Table 1). PCR was performed with M13 primers to amplify and confirm the sequence of the vector insert.

Fig 1. Viral hemorrhagic fever synthetic insert with primer sequence locations.

Fig 1

See text and Table 1 for details.

Table 1. Primers and probes for RT-PCR and RT-qPCR.

Virus* Forward primer (5’-3’) Reverse primer (5’-3’) Size (bp) Reference
CCHFV TCTCAAAGAAACACGTGCC CCTTTTTGAACTCTTCAAACC 122 Atkinson et al., 2012 (10)
EBOV TGGGCTGAAAAYTGCTACAATC CTTTGTGMACATASCGGCAC 111 Gibb et al., 2001 (12)
LV (long) ACCGGGGATCCTAGGCATTT ATGACMATGCCCCTKTCCTGCACAAAGAAC 580 Olschläger et al., 2010 (14)
LV (short) AGCCTGATCCCAGATGCCACACATCTAG TGCTGTTGGAGCGGCTGATGGTCTCAG 197 He et al., 2009 (15)
MARV GGTCAAACTAGATTCTCAGGACTTC GTCACCCCTGAATCAGTTTTTT 80 Huang et al 2012 (13)
RVFV ATGATGACATT GAAGGGA ATGCTGGGAAGTGATGAG 298 Garcia et al., 2001 (11)
β-globin internal control AGAATCCAGATGCTCAAGGC AGGTTCCTTTGTTCCCTAAGT 72 C. Bromhead; this study

*CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus; EBOV: Ebola virus; LV: Lassa virus; MARV: Marburg virus, and: RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus.

The synthesised product was manufactured by GeneScript and cloned using pET-20b(+) vector, which includes a T7 promoter site (Fig 2). The resulting lyophilized plasmid DNA was reconstituted in 20 μL sterile water, but could be stored in the original, relatively stable dried form at room temperature for up to 3 months and at -20 for over a year. RNA copies of the fragment were generated from plasmid DNA using the MAXIscript T7 In Vitro Transcription kit (Ambion) following the manufacturer’s instructions (including the optional DNAse digest). Synthesized RNA was then quantified using Qubit RNA HS (High Sensitivity) Assay Kit and stored at -80°C until further analyses. We estimated the copy number based on the calculation which can be found at http://www.scienceprimer.com/copy-number-calculator-for-realtime-pcr.

Fig 2. pET-20b(+) vector including insert, which is the sequence in Fig 1.

Fig 2

RNA extraction and 1-step RT-PCR

To simulate the biological sample processing steps, the synthetic VHF control RNA (550–5.5x1011 copies) was added to 1 mL sterile PBS or spiked in 900 μl PBS with 100 mg human fecal sample and then passed through a sterile 0.45 μm filter (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG, Düren, Germany). We used feces as a biological test matrix because the complex composition of feces means that PCR inhibitors are more likely than in many other biological test matrices. We used 200 μL of filtrate as the input material for nucleic acid extraction using the High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid kit (Roche, New Zealand) according to the manufacturer’s procedure. Extracted RNA was amplified by 1 step RT-PCR using each of the five VHF primer sets (Table 1) and assay-specific cycling protocols (Table 2). Each 20 μL reaction consisted of 0.25 μM each primer, 1 pg-1μg of template RNA (VHF Control Vector, GeneScript USA), 1 x PCR buffer and 0.5 μL SuperScript III RT/Platinum Taq High Fidelity Enzyme Mix (Invitrogen). RT-PCR products were separated by agarose gel electrophoresis and visualised under UV light where bands of the expected size were identified and excised. DNA was eluted in 50 μL buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 8.0) for 12–24 hours at 4°C and then sent for bi-directional Sanger sequencing to the Massey Genome Service (Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand).

Table 2. Cycling conditions for 1-step RT-PCR assays.

Virus* Amplification** Cycles
CCHFV 95°C 10 s 55°C 30 s 68°C 30 s 45
EBOV 94°C 15 s 60°C 30 s 68°C 30 s 40
LV (long) 95°C 20 s 55°C 20 s 68°C 60 s 45
MARV 94°C 15 s 60°C 30 s 68°C 30 s 45
RVFV 95°C 15 s 55°C 30 s 68°C 30 s 45

*CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus; EBOV: Ebola virus; LV: Lassa virus; MARV: Marburg virus, and: RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus.

**Note that all 1-step RT-PCR assays started with a cDNA synthesis step at 55°C for 30 min followed by an initial denaturation at 95°C for 2 min.

To test the sensitivity of the nucleic acid extraction and 1-step RT-PCR assays, we conducted a dilution series with the synthesized RNA. Dilutions for extraction were prepared in PCR grade water and ranged from 31.2 to 3.12x10-8 ng (copy numbers 5.5x1011 to 550) and followed the same biological sample processing steps as above.

RT-qPCR assay and reagent stability experiments

All RT-qPCR assays used Ultraplex 1-Step ToughMix (Quantabio) and EvaGreen 20x (Biotium, both from DNature NZ Ltd) on a Roche LightCycler-96 instrument. We included two additional primer sets for RT-qPCR assays: a shorter Lassa virus amplicon [15] and a beta-globin internal cellularity control (β-globin) which we found could be duplexed with each VHF assay. Cycling conditions were optimised by testing annealing temperature gradients from 55°C to 65°C in duplicate for all seven assays under the following thermocycler conditions: 50°C for 10 mins, 95°C for 3 mins, 55 cycles of 95°C for 5 s, 55–65°C for 15 s, 72°C for 30 s, with fluorescence acquired during the extension step (excitation/emission EvaGreen = 488/530 nm). See Table 3 for optimal run conditions for each VHF. The average Cq value, the PCR cycle number at which sample reaction curve intersects the threshold line, of each duplicate was compared to find the optimal range of annealing temperatures, with the lowest Cq value chosen.

Table 3. RT-qPCR VHF virus assay optimal experimental conditions and limits of detection.

Target* Optimal annealing temperatures (°C) TM of melting peaks (°C) Limit of detection (copies/ μL)
EBOV 55–61 82.5 50
RVFV 55–56 82.5 50
CCHFV 55–62 83 50
MARV 55–61 78 50
LV-long 55–65 77 500
LV-short 55–58 81 50
β-globin 55–60 81 10

* EBOV: Ebola virus, RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus, CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, MARV: Marburg virus and LV: Lassa virus.

Primer concentrations were optimised by titration from 0.2 to 0.6 μM in 0.05 μM increments using a dilution series from 5000 copies/μL to 0.5 copies/μL of the synthetic control extracted as for test samples (High Pure Viral kit, Roche New Zealand). The dilution series was used to determine the limit of detection of each assay (see results, Table 3). Optimal reagent conditions for each VHF+ β-globin RT-qPCR assay, in a 10 μL reaction, consisted of 1 x Toughmix 1-step buffer, 1 x EvaGreen dye, 0.45 μM each primer (VHF + β-globin), synthetic RNA control (50–5000 copies/μL) and RNAse-free water. All the PCR tests above were run on sterile PBS extracted control material. To investigate the effect of potential inhibitors on PCR or extraction efficiency on detection thresholds we performed the CCHFV RT-qPCR assay on samples filtered through both PBS and spiked fecal samples. These tests were performed using the same RNA control template as used in the previous RT-qPCR assays after >1 year of storage at -80°C.

To assess the performance of our assays under potential field conditions where refrigeration may not be available, we tested the performance of RT-qPCR reagents Ultraplex 1-Step ToughMix and EvaGreen 20x stored at room temperature (12–28°C) for up to 1 week before use. Duplicate RT-qPCR tests for each VHF were performed at each of three timepoints (24 hours, 72 hours and 168 hours, 7 days) using the room temperature reagents. Synthesised RNA from the VHF Control Vector was used as the template at a concentration of 1,600–2,500 copies/μL.

Results

RT-PCR assay detection limits

RT-PCR performance varied among the assays (S1 Table, S1 Fig). The results of a dilution series of synthetic control from 5.5E+11 to 552 copies showed all five assays could detect to a limit of ~5.5 million copies/μL by gel electrophoresis, while the LV and MARV could reliably detect 5.5E+4 and gave visible weak bands at ~550 copies/μL. Sequencing of excised amplified products confirmed that recovered DNA matched target amplicons.

RT-qPCR assay detection limits and time course experiment

The RT-qPCR assays underwent optimisation for annealing temperatures, primer concentrations and high-resolution melt (HRM) analysis. The results for these parameters as well as the limits of detection for each RT-qPCR assay is shown in Table 3 and Fig 3.

Fig 3. High resolution melting peaks for Ebola virus and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (red), Rift Valley fever virus (turquoise), Marburg virus (yellow), short Lassa virus and β-globin (81°C, purple), long Lassa virus (77°C, purple).

Fig 3

Colours are grouped by peak melting temperature (°C).

In our limit of detection experiments, all RT-qPCR assays could reliably detect 50 copies per μL, except for the long LV assay which could only detect down to 500 copies/μL consistently. The decreased efficiency of this assay indicated it was not suitable for qPCR conversion. No change in primer concentration (0.45 mM) was required for combining any of the VHF assays with the β-globin internal control and a standard annealing temperature of 56°C was found to suit all assays. Sterile PBS extractions were found to amplify slightly earlier (2–2.6 cycles) than fecal spiked samples at high template concentrations (100,000 copies) one year after storage, representing nearly a 10-fold difference in the limit of detection, but showed broadly analogous assay sensitivity, with an average Ct of 36.4 (PBS) and 36.7 (feces) for 10,000 copies (S2 Table). Comparison of these results with the original limit of detection results (Cq 29.1 using 1000 copies) showed a reduction in sensitivity (Cq 29.2 at 1.0E+6 copies) demonstrating that long term storage or RNA template and freeze thaw cycles will affect assay sensitivity.

We tested the performance of our VHF RT-qPCR assays using reagents stored at room temperature (12–28°C), in the dark, for up to 1 week. Duplicate RT-qPCR tests for each VHF were performed at each of three timepoints (24 hours, 72 hours and 7 days) using the synthetic RNA control at a concentration of 1,600–2,500 copies/μL. The average Cq values at 24 hours, 72 hours and 1 week all rose compared to time zero (using ideal frozen reagents). The VHF virus RT-qPCR’s biggest change was between 72 hours and 1 week for each VHF virus assay (Fig 4). The average Cq values were highest for the LV assays, particularly the long LV, indicating it was the most sensitive to reduced efficiency reagents. By contrast, the MARV assay maintained a low Cq across all three time points. After 1 week, the assay sensitivity for detecting 1000 copies/μL is significantly compromised. Therefore 3 days (72 hours) at room temperature is the maximum recommended storage time for Ultraplex 1-Step ToughMix (Quantabio) and EvaGreen 20x (Biotium) for this testing purpose (See S3 Table for the raw Cq data).

Fig 4. Room temperature stability time series test of ToughMix and EvaGreen for VHF virus RT-qPCR assays.

Fig 4

Cq is the PCR cycle number at which sample reaction curve intersects the threshold line. EBOV: Ebola virus, CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus, LV: Lassa virus and MARV: Marburg virus.

Discussion

We have developed a single synthetic DNA oligonucleotide with a promotor site to generate positive controls for six assays for the most commonly occurring viral causes of VHF’s using both RT-PCR and RT-qPCR, incorporating an internal control for the latter, with the possibility of multiplexing and using reagents stored at room temperature for up to 72 hours.

Our results demonstrate the applicability of synthetically designed nucleic acids for use as molecular diagnostic assay controls in both RT-PCR and RT-qPCR methods. This work has applications for assay design and optimization, particularly where access to source material is difficult to obtain or requires high level biosafety containment, as is the case with VHF viruses. The control material is clearly distinguishable from actual viral samples using sequence analysis, allowing easy detection of cross contamination. This approach can help learners to train in techniques used in nucleic acid extraction, amplification using either analogue or quantitative PCR, and sequencing of VHF viruses.

As well as providing ongoing validation for the VHF viral assays we present, this approach can be used for any targets, so enabling learners from any countries, including LMICs most burdened by infectious diseases, to design custom assay controls specific to local disease burdens, with potential for multiplexing from a single positive control. Developing new targets requires knowledge and researchers may need training, access to software and the ability to import reagents, but is a cheap and safe way to create stable control material. We had no problems detecting DNA or RNA from the synthetic vector insert. However, RNA secondary structures may impede amplification in some cases, so some care may be needed in the synthetic insert design for other targets.

Our assay was designed for use as a training tool and help test reagent viability, from extraction steps to PCR and sequencing, but it also performed well in the presence of potential inhibitors in human feces, which are commonly found in real samples. Other sample matrices such as blood or urine were not tested as they are considered less challenging for PCR inhibitors, but further testing may be advisable depending on the applications of future studies. Furthermore, to better test performance and detectability in other biological sample matrices further studies could use control material encapsulated with a pseudovirus or proteinaceous shell [22], as well as measure how matrices impact RNA purity. Future studies can also explore the plasmid vector and reagent stability better and under different conditions [23,24]. Moreover, further studies using synthetically designed control material may also consider the incorporation of probe-based RT-qPCR. This could be achieved by adding a probe sequence to the appropriate site within the amplicon and running the PCR with probes rather than fluorescent dye, though it is more costly. Additionally, if the amplicon regions were designed as linear rather than overlapping amplicons, the synthetic assay design could directly match the target sequence allowing high resolution melt curve analyses. However, any of these detection strategies requires validation by sequencing, which itself introduces challenges in low resource settings and additional training of researchers.

Recent technological advances have greatly improved virus detection and diagnosis without the need for multi-step RNA purification [25]. New generation RT-qPCR reagents are more robust to temperature storage above -20°C. These tests provide rapid, inexpensive, and robust diagnoses where laboratory infrastructure is not available, and may replace current technologies (i.e., RT-PCR assays) in some settings. However, there is an urgent need to develop in-country tools for surveillance and diagnosis for both people and wildlife hosts for the VHFs [9]. Since our workflow requires only standard equipment, currently present in most molecular biology laboratories, it has applications for the design and validation of tests used in surveillance of VHFs in countries where such work is most needed and for the time being RT-PCR and RT-qPCR are likely to remain the most common method for many diagnostic laboratories. Therefore, safe approaches to generate control material and to train staff are needed and our work provides further evidence for the applicability of synthetic nucleic acids for use as assay controls. While this assay was originally designed with a specific training application for detecting VHFs in Liberia, similar approaches could be used for training and surveillance in similar circumstances to detect outbreaks of infection in animal populations where laboratories may not be as well-resourced as in human clinical settings, or more regional laboratories in lower-resource settings in LMICs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. RT-PCR gel results from dilution series experiment on five VHF virus assays.

Lanes are labelled as follows: A: 1kb ladder (expanded on right of figure), B: 5.5x1012 copies, C: 5.5x1011 copies, D: 5.5x109 copies, E: 5.5x107 copies, F: 5.5x105 copies, G: 5.5x103 copies, H: negative control. CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, EBOV: Ebola virus, LV: Lassa virus, MARV: Marburg virus and RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus.

(DOCX)

pntd.0011390.s001.docx (164.3KB, docx)
S1 Table. Gel electrophoresis detection results for a dilution series experiment on five viral hemorrhagic fever virus assays.

(DOCX)

pntd.0011390.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)
S2 Table. Comparison of sample matrices (PBS v fecal) on RT-qPCR efficiency using the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) assay.

(DOCX)

pntd.0011390.s003.docx (15.2KB, docx)
S3 Table. Raw Cq values from time course experiments.

(DOCX)

pntd.0011390.s004.docx (15.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of WOAH staff, particularly Sophie Muset and Mariana Marrana, and the Central Veterinary Laboratory team in Liberia.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by funds from the World Organisation for Animal Health (Grant 3000034275; OIE Laboratory (or Collaborating Centre) Twinning Project: Enhancing capacity for early detection of viral haemorrhagic fevers in Liberia through epidemiological and laboratory training), Royal Society Te Apārangi Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (RDF-MAU1701) and the Percival Carmine Chair in Epidemiology and Public Health (all to DTSH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, [^#]. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. New England journal of medicine. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jones BA, Grace D, Kock R, Alonso S, Rushton J, Said MY, et al. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(21):8399–404. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208059110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008;451(7181):990–3. doi: 10.1038/nature06536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rulli MC, Santini M, Hayman DT, D’Odorico P. The nexus between forest fragmentation in Africa and Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific reports. 2017;7:41613. doi: 10.1038/srep41613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Stephens PR, Gottdenker N, Schatz AM, Schmidt JP, Drake JM. Characteristics of the 100 largest modern zoonotic disease outbreaks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2021;376(1837):20200535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Molyneux D, Hallaj Z, Keusch GT, McManus DP, Ngowi H, Cleaveland S, et al. Zoonoses and marginalised infectious diseases of poverty: where do we stand? Parasit Vectors. 2011;4:106. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gessain A, Nakoune E, Yazdanpanah Y. Monkeypox. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;387(19):1783–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baize S, Pannetier D, Oestereich L, Rieger T, Koivogui L, Magassouba NF, et al. Emergence of Zaire Ebola virus disease in Guinea. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(15):1418–25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maudling R. How can One Health contribute to pandemic prevention? Looking at Ebola through a One Health lens. CABI One Health. 2022(2022):ohcs20220004. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Atkinson B, Chamberlain J, Logue CH, Cook N, Bruce C, Dowall SD, et al. Development of a real-time RT-PCR assay for the detection of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12(9):786–93. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2011.0770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Garcia S, Crance JM, Billecocq A, Peinnequin A, Jouan A, Bouloy M, et al. Quantitative real-time PCR detection of Rift Valley fever virus and its application to evaluation of antiviral compounds. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(12):4456–61. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.12.4456-4461.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gibb TR, Norwood DA Jr., Woollen N, Henchal EA. Development and evaluation of a fluorogenic 5’ nuclease assay to detect and differentiate between Ebola virus subtypes Zaire and Sudan. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(11):4125–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huang Y, Wei H, Wang Y, Shi Z, Raoul H, Yuan Z. Rapid detection of filoviruses by real-time TaqMan polymerase chain reaction assays. Virol Sin. 2012;27(5):273–7. doi: 10.1007/s12250-012-3252-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Olschläger S, Lelke M, Emmerich P, Panning M, Drosten C, Hass M, et al. Improved detection of Lassa virus by reverse transcription-PCR targeting the 5’ region of S RNA. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(6):2009–13. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02351-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.He J, Kraft AJ, Fan J, Van Dyke M, Wang L, Bose ME, et al. Simultaneous Detection of CDC Category "A" DNA and RNA Bioterrorism Agents by Use of Multiplex PCR & RT-PCR Enzyme Hybridization Assays. Viruses. 2009;1(3):441–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Muzembo BA, Kitahara K, Ohno A, Ntontolo NP, Ngatu NR, Okamoto K, et al. Rapid diagnostic tests versus RT-PCR for Ebola virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2022;100(7):447–58. doi: 10.2471/BLT.21.287496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Worsley-Tonks KE, Bender JB, Deem SL, Ferguson AW, Fèvre EM, Martins DJ, et al. Strengthening global health security by improving disease surveillance in remote rural areas of low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health. 2022;10(4):e579–e84. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00031-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Molyneux D, Hallaj Z, Keusch GT, McManus DP, Ngowi H, Cleaveland S, et al. Zoonoses and marginalised infectious diseases of poverty: where do we stand? Parasites & vectors. 2011;4(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Organization WH. WHO consultative meeting high/maximum containment (biosafety level 4) laboratories networking: venue: International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, 13–15 December 2017: meeting report. 2018.
  • 20.Hayman DT, Banyard AC, Wakeley PR, Harkess G, Marston D, Wood JL, et al. A universal real-time assay for the detection of Lyssaviruses. Journal of virological methods. 2011;177(1):87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.King DP, Reid SM, Hutchings GH, Grierson SS, Wilkinson PJ, Dixon LK, et al. Development of a TaqMan PCR assay with internal amplification control for the detection of African swine fever virus. Journal of Virological Methods. 2003;107(1):53–61. doi: 10.1016/s0166-0934(02)00189-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Xiang Q, Li L, Wu J, Tian M, Fu Y. Application of pseudovirus system in the development of vaccine, antiviral-drugs, and neutralizing antibodies. Microbiol Res. 2022;258:126993. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.126993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bhadra S, Paik I, Torres JA, Fadanka S, Gandini C, Akligoh H, et al. Preparation and use of cellular reagents: a low-resource molecular biology reagent platform. Current Protocols. 2022;2(3):e387. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Qu S, Shi Q, Zhou L, Guo Z, Zhou D, Zhai J, et al. Ambient stable quantitative PCR reagents for the detection of Yersinia pestis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2010;4(3):e629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pollak NM, Olsson M, Marsh GA, Macdonald J, McMillan D. Evaluation of three rapid low-resource molecular tests for Nipah virus. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1101914. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1101914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011390.r001

Decision Letter 0

Elvina Viennet, Aparna Krishnavajhala

25 Sep 2023

Dear Dr. Matthew A Knox,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Aparna Krishnavajhala, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Elvina Viennet

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: In their manuscript, Knox and colleagues present the development of synthetic DNA oligonucleotide sequences encoding primer binding sites of different viral haemorrhagic fever (VHF) viruses and their application in conventional and real-time RT-PCRs with the aim of implementing this strategy under field conditions. Generally, the development of in-vitro transcribed RNA as controls for various PCR assays is not entirely new. However, the general idea to establish protocols that support capacity building in areas where access to diagnostic laboratory services has been limited, is crucial to strengthen the laboratory infrastructure of the respective countries. Moreover, this study underlines the importance of epidemiological surveillance studies in these areas and the need for reliable diagnostics and well-trained personnel.

Although the general performance of the in-vitro transcribed RNA seems promising, there are some shortcomings in the overall methodology that should be addressed. The description of some important points was insufficient or completely missing.

Some major points:

p. 8, lines 89 ff.: Taxonomy. It seems that there is no unified way of using the virus taxonomy. Some viruses are written in italics, others not. For some, the species name was used (CCHF orthonairovirus and RVF phlebovirus). Here, one could go for the virus name like in Ebola, Lassa and Marburg virus. Only when referring to the species/genus/family, the name is written in italics. “[…] order Bunyavirales (italics!): Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (non-italics!) (CCHFV; Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever orthonairovirus (italics!), family Nairoviridae (italics!), […]” and so on. It starts in the abstract and is continued in the Methods section.

p. 8, line 85: how randomly generated is this sequence between the primer binding sites? Is there anything to consider when generating it (e.g. RNA secondary structure, anything that could hamper RNA transcription)? How are the melting peaks affected by sequence design?

p. 8, line 87: the fragment contains primer binding positions. What about using probes in addition? Conventional PCR and melting curve analyses-based qPCR requires sequencing to avoid misinterpretation/to exclude contamination. Certainly, this can also happen in probe-based qPCRs. However, under field settings, sequencing may be a challenge. Also, melting curve analyses require intensive training of personnel. At the very least, please discuss advantages and disadvantages of all these methods.

p.10, line 109: does manufacturer’s instruction include DNAse digest? It would be helpful to mention it and discuss its importance when discussing the results. When setting up all the assays, have PCRs been performed without reverse transcription? Was there an amplification? How did the authors determine purity of RNA?

Reviewer #2: Most clinical laboratories in VHF-prone countries in sub-Saharan Africa use real-time PCR to diagnose EBOV and LASV infection. What is the rationale for using analogue RT-PCR in this paper?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript Knox et al describe their development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays. The article is well-written and results are clearly presented. Overall the idea and preliminary results with the control(s) appear promising. However, the authors overstate or misunderstand the application of the controls in their current state of development. Are the controls for use in the field or a molecular biology lab? If the former, then how do you operate a quality-equivalent thermal cycler in an area where "access to refrigeration and cold storage is often not possible"?. If the latter, then why is so much emphasis put in the manuscript about low-resource settings? The control as currently presented/validated is more appropriate for developed world diagnostic laboratories where indeed lab staff from low-resource countries could be trained.

Scientifically, the biggest concern I see with the control validation is the fact that experiments are always being performed in sterile PBS, sterile water, PCR grade water, and RNase-free water. Minimally the authors should present results with fresh blood samples spiked with the controls. Ideally the control would be encapsulated with a pseudovirus or proteinaceous shell.

Another problem with the validation is the idea that 28C is an adequate challenge for RNA for these VHFs, many of which occur in the middle east, Sahara, West Africa, and equatorial Africa where average daily temperatures are around 27C.

Some minor comments:

Line 41: is "but" or "and" more appropriate?

Line 51: change animal to animals.

Lines 53-56: Need reference for this statement.

Line 58: This sort of "must" language should be removed from scientific publication.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Some major points:

p. 13, line 169 ff.: the detection limit is around 5 million copies per µl for some of the conventional PCRs, that seems a lot. What about the dilutions of 1:10^4, 1:10^6 and 1:10^8? Have those been performed and tested? It would give more accuracy to the detection limit and maybe even improve performance of the PCRs. Especially when comparing it to the qPCR data where 50 copies were sufficient. This is round about 5 log. Have the authors tested the effect different primer concentrations may have? That would be important to know at this point.

For the supplementary Figure 1, it would help to have the DNA ladder size indicated, maybe at least for some of the bands.

p. 13, line 180: Table 3: the optimal annealing temperature has a broad range for almost all the assays. How was this determined? Please describe. What were the quality criteria to consider the temperature optimal? P. 14, l. 192, please mention the criteria to decide for 56°C annealing temperature.

p. 14, line 184: Figure 3, if the synthetic construct does not include the authentic sequence amplified (but only a random sequence as mentioned above), how does that affect the melting peaks when comparing it with that of an (authentic) field sequence? Please include at least a statement in your discussion.

p. 15, line 208: please add abbreviations to the figure legend. What does Cq mean, what is displayed at all? The figure legend is a little short in information.

p.16, line 229 ff., please also discuss the capacity building needed to train personnel in designing a synthetic construct (and possibly the difficulty to obtain synthesized sequences in some low to middle income countries).

Reviewer #2: RT-PCR and RT-qPCR

• The authors have not demonstrated the relevance of these RT-PCR and RT-qPCR conditions by showing that they can successfully amplify nucleic acids from any of the five different VHF pathogens in real or spiked samples.

Stability of PCR reagents

• This section is poorly designed.

• Why are the authors testing the stability ToughMix and Eva Green reagents, when the focus of the paper is on the synthetic positive control material? One of the main reasons that diagnostic PCR reactions fail in the field is due to degradation of the positive control nucleic acids. What the authors should have tested is the stability of their synthetic control material, at different temperature, through different number of freeze-thaw cycles.

• The ambient temperature used (12-28°C) is inadequate. The ambient temperature in West Africa can reach 38°C in the dry season.

• There is no control. Would the Cq also increase after 7 days if the reagents were stored at 2-8°C or -20°C?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: see above suggestions concerning the improvement of the discussion.

Reviewer #2: The study is poorly designed and lacks key controls.

The results do not fully demonstrate relevance or application.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Line 92

The correct abbreviation for Ebola virus is EBOV.

Line 93

The correct abbreviation for Marburg virus is MARV.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: try Taqman-based/probe-based PCR in comparison with conventional and melting curve-based PCR.

complete dilution series (10^4/6/8 were missing)

show experiments to determine annealing temperature

Reviewer #2: The development of non-infectious control materials for VHF diagnosis is welcome. But the result presented in this paper is not complete. The experimental design for reagent stability is flawed. The use of the invented reagent has not been fully validated.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

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: 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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011390.r003

Decision Letter 1

Elvina Viennet, Aparna Krishnavajhala

4 Mar 2024

Dear Matthew Knox,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Aparna Krishnavajhala, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Elvina Viennet

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #4: In the manuscript, the authors present the development of synthetic DNA, infectious control for the viral hemorrhagic fevers PCR assays, this is a good subject, as for a lot of viral infections it is hard to extract the positive controls, particularly where the access to the source material is problematic or requires high level biosafety containment.

there are some grammatical errors in line31 and needs to be changed to "are". the same in line62.

Reviewer #5: The study only evaluated fecal samples, but should include other sample types unless other parts of the manuscript are updated to clearly reflect this is only one sample type.

The authors mention that the lyophilized plasmid DNA could be stored in the relatively stable dried form, but include no experiments that indicate for how long and at what temps it can be stored and still successfully used in this assay. This is important given they highlight that this is a good tool for use in LMICs.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #4: The authors have not mentioned the importance of Rt PCR and RT qPCR.

the figures are of sufficient quality.

Reviewer #5: Figures images are low quality and difficult to read but content is valuable.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Limitations of testing only one sample type should be further discussed. Public health relevance is well addressed. Clarity edits are needed.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: General clarity edits are necessary. The text can be modified to be clearer and more direct.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #4: the paper has a good relevance but needs some minor clarifications and modifications.

Reviewer #5: The presented technology is valuable and useful, but the analyses of its use lacks important controls (alternate sample types, additional temperature storage testing) that need to be addressed before this can be presented as widely applicable controls.

--------------------

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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011390.r005

Decision Letter 2

Elvina Viennet

13 Apr 2024

Dear Dr Knox,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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 Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Elvina Viennet, PhD

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Elvina Viennet

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011390.r006

Acceptance letter

Elvina Viennet

17 Apr 2024

Dear Dr Knox,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Development of a non-infectious control for viral hemorrhagic fever PCR assays," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the 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 (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, 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 will be published online unless you opted out of this process. 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 Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. RT-PCR gel results from dilution series experiment on five VHF virus assays.

    Lanes are labelled as follows: A: 1kb ladder (expanded on right of figure), B: 5.5x1012 copies, C: 5.5x1011 copies, D: 5.5x109 copies, E: 5.5x107 copies, F: 5.5x105 copies, G: 5.5x103 copies, H: negative control. CCHFV: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, EBOV: Ebola virus, LV: Lassa virus, MARV: Marburg virus and RVFV: Rift Valley fever virus.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0011390.s001.docx (164.3KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Gel electrophoresis detection results for a dilution series experiment on five viral hemorrhagic fever virus assays.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0011390.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Comparison of sample matrices (PBS v fecal) on RT-qPCR efficiency using the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) assay.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0011390.s003.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Raw Cq values from time course experiments.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0011390.s004.docx (15.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_12_12_23.docx

    pntd.0011390.s005.docx (45.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PNTD-D-23-00631R1.docx

    pntd.0011390.s006.docx (24.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES