Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 13;19(6):e0305228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305228

Lack of variations in the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, at its alleged origin: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidence

David Lastra González 1,2,*, Kanto Nishikawa 3, Koshiro Eto 4, Shigeharu Terui 5, Ryo Kamimura 6, Nuria Viñuela Rodríguez 7, Natsuhiko Yoshikawa 8, Atsushi Tominaga 1,6
Editor: Tzen-Yuh Chiang9
PMCID: PMC11175521  PMID: 38870137

Abstract

The chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans [Bsal] is causing declines in the amphibian populations. After a decade of mapping the pathogen in Europe, where it is causing dramatic outbreaks, and North America, where its arrival would affect to the salamander’s biodiversity hotspot, little is known about its current status in Asia, from presumably is native. Japan has several species considered as potential carriers, but no regulation is implemented against Bsal spreading. Previous Bsal known presence detected various cases on the Okinawa Island, southwestern Japan. Previous studies on its sister species, B. dendrobatidis presented a high genomic variation in this area and particularly on Cynops ensicauda. Here, we have done the largest monitoring to date in Japan on the Cynops genus, focusing on Okinawa Island and updating its distribution and providing more information to unravel the still unknown origin of Bsal. Interestingly, we have provided revealing facts about different detectability depending on the used molecular techniques and changes in its Japanese distribution. All in all, the Bsal presence in Japan, together with its low variability in the sequenced amplicons, and the lack of apparent mortalities, may indicate that this part of Asia has a high diversity of chytrids.

Introduction

Chytridiomycosis, caused by the chytrid fungi Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis [Bd] and B. salamandrivorans [Bsal], is an amphibian disease that has resulted in population declines in many parts of the world [1]. Bsal has particularly affected salamanders and newts in Western Europe by infecting their skin and causing lethal lesions [2]. Bsal has affected both wild and captive populations, leading to a near extinction of the wild populations of fire salamander, Salamandra salamandra, in the Netherlands. It has caused a severe decline of the fire salamander in Belgium and Germany as well as an outbreak affecting Triturus marmoratus in NE Spain due to an illegal release of allochthonous species that affected local species as well [35].

The introduction of this fungal pathogen to Europe is primarily attributed to the pet salamander trade from East/Southeast Asia [6] and therefore, trade regulations have been established [7]. It is imperative to control the amphibian pet trade and conduct surveillance of the pathogen to prevent its spread to Bsal free regions [8].

Pursuing this need, the monitoring of Bsal in its the allegedly native distribution becomes primordial in order to know the ecological needs and the suitable areas where the human-mediated spreading could facilitate outbreaks caused by the arrival of Bsal. Primarily, Bsal-positive localities were found and thought to be part of the native distribution in South Korea, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan, suggesting an Asian origin of Bsal [6, 9].

Since the description of Bsal, monitoring efforts have been focused on Europe where massive screenings were carried out [3, 10]. Nevertheless, Asia has been subject to substantially less Bsal sampling, excluding Vietnam [6], China [11] and Taiwan [12].

Despite several localities with molecular confirmation for this chytrid fungus, since 2014 Bsal monitoring has not been performed in Japan. Thirteen specimens of four different species tested positive [9]. Regarding the other chytrid fungus species, Bd, Japan, and particularly the Ryukyu Islands, have been shown to have a high genetic diversity. As an example, [13] obtained 44 haplotypes of Bd ITS‐DNA in Japan. Besides, the sword-tailed newts Cynops ensicauda from Okinawa Island, the main island of the Ryukyu Islands had both the highest infectious incidence and the greatest number of haplotypes. Remarkably, in both Okinawa Island and Amami Island the same species were Bsal positive [9].

Interestingly, to date, all the genomic data available belongs to the same isolate, and amplicons for Bsal positive samples were compared with these available sequences with not observed difference [9, 11]. Unfortunately, no further research has been done in any of the alleged Bsal native countries in order to assess for genetic variation, amplicon diversity, nor Bsal distribution.

Thus, in this research we present the biggest monitoring carried to date in Japan, where we have explored the genetic diversity of the Bsal positive animals in order to check if the same kind of variation as in Bd exist, which we have also included in our analysis, and we have checked thoroughly the alleged Bsal positives localities reported in the one and only study that included Japan, focusing on the hotspot of Bd, the Okinawa Island.

Materials and methods

Between 2011 and 2023, a total of 1012 samples were collected from various sources for the purpose of detecting Bsal or unrelated sample collection. These samples were obtained from 98 sites, encompassing 21 amphibian species from Japan [See S1 Table]. We collected samples from 34 out of 43 prefectures of Japan, spanning across seven different islands. More than 50% of the samples belong to Japanese amphibians from the genus Cynops [C. ensicauda and C. pyrrhogaster]. Both were extensively sampled due to its known suitability as hosts for Bsal chytrid fungi [9].

Most of the samples consisted of skin swabs [Men-tip 1P1501, Nihon-Menbo Co.] collected using standard procedures for sampling amphibian chytrid fungi, while a small portion consisted of toe clippings [14]. When possible, and without compromising relevant data, swab samples from the same locality and same amphibian species were pooled in order to reduce costs with a maximum number of four swabs pooled for one extraction [15].

Genomic DNA was extracted from both kind of samples, swabs and toe clips, using a slightly modified protocol [see 10] for the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit [Qiagen, Hilden, Germany] and Bsal testing was conducted in the facilities of University of the Ryukyus. Two detection assays were utilized: one based on standard polymerase chain reaction [PCR] followed by electrophoresis [2] and the other on duplex Bd and Bsal quantitative PCR [16]. Positive or equivocal results on the standard PCR were reanalyzed using duplex quantitative PCR [qPCR]. Quantification standards were created from gBlocks [Integrated DNA Technologies Inc., Coralville, IA, USA] as Bsal and Bd standards. In qPCR tests, all analyses were performed in duplicate in Roche LightCycler 480 II [Roche Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan], using the Roche 480 Probes Master mix [Roche Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan]. A sample was considered positive only if both wells amplified, the increase in fluorescence showed a standard sigmoidal curve, and the Ct value was below 40. Samples with single well amplification were retested. In all analyses, we used the calculation of the 2nd derivative maximum, which is available in LightCycler 480 software. Subsequently, a subset of samples was sequenced by chain-terminating [Sanger] in Applied Biosystems 3130xl Genetic Analyzer [Applied Biosystems, Foster City, USA] targeting the 5.8S rRNA gene. This study was approved by the University of the Ryukyus Animal Experimentation Committee [approval number A2022053].

Results

This study confirmed the presence of Bsal in Japan. Within the Japanese geographic range where it was detected, neither deaths nor animals with symptoms compatible with chytridiomycosis were observed.

Quantitative PCR [qPCR] analysis detected 17 samples of which at least one well became qPCR Bsal positive. According to the criteria mentioned in the Methods section, only four samples should be considered qPCR positive from two localities, but same species Cynops ensicauda popei, from Okinawa Island [see Table 1]. These four samples were checked again by qPCR and consistently showed a positive signal in both wells with permanent values around 1 GE load. In addition, we performed Sanger sequencing in all the doubtful samples, and we were successful in 13 of them. All sequenced samples (160 base pairs) showed a 100% identity with GenBank accession number KC762295. From the 13 sequences, 10 of them are from different localities, and two of them are coincident with previously published Bsal localities [9]. In the case of Bd, samples that were doubtful by standard PCR method were analyzed using the duplex Bd-Bsal qPCR. Here, Bd was detected in 32 samples [see Table 1]. One locality showed 55% of prevalence, but as in the rest of Bd positive samples, the GE load was always less than 10 GE.

Table 1. Results’ summary of positive samples [N] of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis [Bd] and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans [Bsal] in Japan.

Island [N of localities with chytrid presence, N of samples] N Bd+ Samples* N Bsal + qPCR N Bsal + qPCR N Bsal + Sequenced§ N Bd+ and Bsal+
Okinawa [5,151] 28 4 5 7 [3+2]
Kyushu [3,168] 2 0 0 4 [0+1]
Honshu [1,263] 0 0 0 1 [0+0]
Hokkaido [2,74] 2 0 0 1 [0+1]

* Bd + detected by qPCR following Blooi et al. 2013 [16].

Bsal+ detected by qPCR as Blooi et al. 2013 [16] [less 40 Ct value, duplicate, sigmoidal curve].

Bsal+ detected by qPCR as Blooi et al. 2013 [16]. Following Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2020, [18], a Bsal sample is considered positive if during qPCR analyses more qPCR replicates became positive than negative.

§ Bsal+ sequenced by Sanger and 100% identical amplicon as Genbank reference accession number KC762295.

Bd and Bsal samples co-occurrence, [X+Y] being X the number of Bsal qPCR positives that were also Bd+* and Y being the number of Bsal samples sequenced§ and were also Bd+*.

In terms of distribution, we detected Bsal by sequencing amplicons on doubtful samples from Hokkaido, Honshu, and Kyushu islands, in addition to Okinawa Island. The Okinawan Bsal-positive localities are approximately 1000 km far to the nearest in Kyushu and monitoring in two small islands [Amamioshima and Tokunoshima] in between those with Bsal presence had not any animals with Bsal confirmation. [see Fig 1].

Fig 1. Map of Bsal positive localities in Japan (Left) where Bsal DNA was obtained and had 100% match with Genbank accession number KC762295.

Fig 1

Detailed map of southern islands of Japan (Right). Number (N) 1 (Hynobius retardatus), 2 (Cynops phyrrhogaster), 3 (Hynobius nebulosus), 4 (Cynops pyrrhogaster), 5 (Cynops pyrrhogaster) 6–10 (Cynops ensicauda). Reprinted once the base map was created in QGIS (https://qgis.org/en/site/) with data obtained from the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (Global Map Japan | GSI HOME PAGE <https://www.gsi.go.jp/kankyochiri/gm_japan_e.html>),] under a CC BY license, with permission from [the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan], original copyright [2024].

Discussion

We have detected Bsal in Japan after 10 years of no information since the one and only study [9] containing data about the Bsal presence in Japan was published. In spite of the sampling effort for this work being four times larger, the epidemiologic situation seems analogous to [9]. The prevalence and the infection loads found, were similar to [9] and two out of the ten positive localities detected in this study correspond with already published positive localities. This evidence could suggest a long-term relationship among host and pathogen and most likely endemism of Bsal for at least Okinawa Island. The confirmed presence of the pathogen for more than a decade, the lack of individuals with high infection loads, and a low prevalence without detected outbreaks, respond better to an endemic situation in a relationship between host and pathogen. If we keep in mind the situation and how was the arrival of Bsal into the European urodelan populations, it does not show the same interactions of a novel pathogen into its potential hosts as it happened in Central Europe. On the other hand, one locality in Okinawa Island, where Bsal was detected in 2014 [9], had no presence of newts despite several visits at different times of the year. Even when Bsal is known to be able to extirpate entire populations [3], we presumed that in this case it is related with human-mediated major habitat destruction of the surroundings, that left the area heavily altered and isolated.

Interestingly, our repeated analysis of samples by different methodologies presents an intriguing result. Bsal qPCR protocol has been under discussion and considered not enough to claim a sample for being Bsal positive [17]. Thus, in summary, the qPCR Bsal protocol was said to tend to create false positives. In contrast, we have observed that in 10 samples where we initially discarded the interpretation of qPCR results as Bsal positive, posterior standard PCR amplification in a different room where qPCR analyses were carried out, produced several amplicons with sequences 100% identical to the Bsal reference accession number KC762295.

As stated above, we have been very conservative in the establishment of criteria for assuming the positivity in our samples. If we would have followed the criteria of [18], for example, another five positives could be mentioned, meaning that from all repeated analysis more qPCR analyses were positive than negatives. On the other hand, we could have followed even a more conservative approach if we had confirmed the Bsal positive samples in two laboratories. Although qPCR is an established, reliable, and robust technique, and amplicons were identical to the published B. salamandrivorans sequence, the low-level infections in the Japanese amphibians preclude the use of an independent diagnostic technique as required by the World Organisation for Animal Health, hampering the possibility to exclude false positive results.

Another fact to point out is the Bsal presence in Hokkaido Island. In the past, two Salamandrella keyserlingii individuals out of four were found Bsal positive [9]. We increased the effort by ten times in this island and extended the monitoring to the only other caudate species found in the island, Hynobius retardatus, with one individual testing positive and being the first Bsal positive for this species. It is an intriguing situation that in a species with a high prevalence in the past [50% but a small sample size, see 9] Bsal was now not detected in this species. Hokkaido climate is known by its harsh winters, e.g., average temperature is below 0º C for 4 months, and this could have pushed Bsal to undetectable levels during the time of our monitoring. On the other hand, this detected/undetected situation has already occurred in other areas where previous known Bsal presence was detected and on different climate areas, e.g., Spain and Taiwan [see 12, 19]. However, its detection in Hynobius retardatus but not in Salamandrella keyserlingii is interesting, especially when this species was thought to be resistant to the fungus [9].

Unlike in its suggested sister species, Bd, we have not observed genetic variation in the Bsal sequenced amplicons in Okinawa [neither other part of Japan], a known hotspot for Bd haplotype variation [13]. A reasonable interpretation of this fact could be that the origin, or the evolutionary history, of both pathogens is different, meaning that Bsal presence in this area is at least more recent (or even could indicate an invasion event) than Bd or even artificially introduced. This suggestion is supported through evidence from sequences obtained from the rest of Japan share the same haplotype as those from Okinawa. Nonetheless, we are aware that the sequencing of a short fragment from the ITS region falls short for a firm interpretation, and additional methodologies such as Bsal strain typing would be recommended to infer sound conclusions.

Lastly, it is important to mention that, currently, Japanese conservation laws do not protect all amphibian species equally. For example, Cynops pyrrhogaster and C. ensicauda popei, in particular, are widely and frequently captured in the wild for commercial, research, and educational purposes. Furthermore, these species are easily and legally [as there is no regulation for this species] found in stores, private collections, or high schools [20]. It is crucial to implement mitigation measures to prevent further spread of this deadly pathogen and protect amphibian populations as its presence in the international pet market is noteworthy [20, 21].

Conclusions

Our study confirms the presence of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in Japan, suggesting that this fungus may have a longer history in this region in comparison other Asian countries where recurrent detection has not been achieved, and in addition, it is not causing obvious mass mortalities as it does in other parts of the world. The low pathogen load detected could be explained by the result of a long-term relationship between pathogen and host. However, similar relationships have been already found in Europe (e.g. Ichtyosaura alpestris [22]) even though Bsal does not show any sign of being native to Europe. Strong statements should be avoided with the current available information. The found prevalence existing in our monitoring, 1.6%, is slightly lower (but not significantly lower) than in other studies in Bsal presumably native countries [e.g., China, 2.9% and Vietnam, 2.9%, see 6, 11]. Until further phylogenetic analyses confirm its origin, the Bsal presence in Japanese territory may have been introduced by humans, being endemic to Southeast/East Asia or even circulate undetected in this geographic range without causing deaths as well. These results should raise awareness among the research and conservation communities and prompt urgent action to identify regions with early emergence of the disease and implement mitigation measures to prevent further spread of this deadly pathogen.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Detailed information about amphibian collected samples.

*Bsal+ detected by Blooi et al. 2013 (less 40 Ct value, duplicate, sigmoidal curve). †Bsal+ detected by Blooi et al. 2013 (more qPCR positives than negatives as Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2020). ‡Bsal+ sequenced by Sanger and 100% identical amplicon as Genbank reference accession number KC762295.

(DOCX)

pone.0305228.s001.docx (55.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Jiro Kawahara, Asaki Hentona, Daichi Shingaki, Kousuke Uchiwa, Sakura Nishijima and Ichiro Yoshida for their fieldwork assistance and to Vojtech Baláž, Matthew J.Gray and Edward Davis Carter for their laboratory assistance. Board of Education of Kushiro city kindly permitted collecting swab from Salamandrella keyserlingii [Reference No. 6, 2023 to S. Terui]. The Ministry of Environment of Japan permits us to collect samples from Onychodactylus tsukubaensis [Reference number N. 2303173 to N. Yoshikawa] and provided samples of Hynobius abei. The Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan permit us to collect samples from Andrias japonicus [Reference number N. 23-4-1944 to K. Nishikawa]. We also thank the Ministry of the Environment of Japan [2301101 to A. Tominaga] and Kagoshima Prefectural Board of Education [reference No. 5244, 2023 to A. Tominaga] and the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education [reference No. 77, 2022 to A. Tominaga] for providing permissions for collecting samples for Echinotriton andersoni and Echinotriton raffaellii.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. My submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of the study.

Funding Statement

David Lastra González is supported by the JSPS Postdoctoral fellowships for Research in Japan The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Scheele BC, Pasmans F, Skerratt LF, Berger L, Martel AN, Beukema W, et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 2019;363, 1459–1463. [doi: 10.1126/science.aav0379] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Martel A, Spitzen-van der Sluijs A, Blooi M, Bert W, Ducatelle R, Fisher MC, et al. Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013;110, 15325–9. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307356110] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Spitzen-van der Sluijs A, Martel A, Asselberghs J, Bales EK, Beukema W, Bletz MC, et al. Expanding distribution of lethal amphibian fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016;22: 1286–1288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lötters S, Wagner N, Albaldejo G, Böning P, Dalbeck L, Düssel H, et al. The amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in the hotspot of its European invasive range: past–present–future. Salamandra 2020;56[3], 173–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martel A, Vila-Escalé M, Fernandez-Giberteau D, Martínez-Silvestre A, Canessa S, Van Praet S, et al. Integral chain management of wildlife diseases. Conserv. Lett. 2020;e12707. [doi: 10.1111/conl.12707] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Laking AE, Ngo HN, Pasmans F, Martel A, Nguyen TT. Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans is the pre-dominant chytrid fungus in Vietnamese salamanders. Sci. Rep. 2017;7: 44443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. List of Salamander Species Designated as Injurious effective on January 12, 2016. https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/list-of-salamander-species.html [Accessed 28th June 2023].
  • 8.Commission Implementing Decision [EU] 2018/320 of 28 February 2018 on certain animal health protection measures for intra-Union trade in salamanders and the introduction into the Union of such animals in relation to the fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. Official Journal of the European Union. 2018; L62:18–33 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2018/320/oj [Accessed 28th June 2023] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Martel A, Blooi M, Adriaensen C, Van Rooij P, Beukema W, Fisher MC, et al. Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 2014;346:630–1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lastra González D, Baláž V, Solský M, Thumsová B, Kolenda K, Najbar A, et al. Recent Findings of Potentially Lethal Salamander Fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2019;25[7], 1416–1418. [ 10.3201/eid2507.181001] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yuan Z, Martel A, Wu J, Van Praet S, Canessa S, Pasmans F, et al. Widespread occurrence of an emerging fungal pathogen in heavily traded Chinese urodelan species. Conserv. Lett. 2017;e12436. [doi: 10.1111/conl.12436] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schmeller DS, Cheng T, Shelton J, Lin C, Chan‑Alvarado A, Bernardo‑Cravo A, et al. Environment is associated with chytrid infection and skin microbiome richness on an amphibian rich island [Taiwan] Sci. Rep. 2022;12:16456. [doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20547-3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Goka K, Yokoyama J, Tominaga A. Distribution and genetic diversity of the amphibian chytrid in Japan. J. Fungi 2021;7, 522. [doi: 10.3390/jof7070522] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hyat AD, Boyle DG, Olsen V, Boyle DB, Berger L, Obendorf D, et al. Diagnostic assays and sampling protocols for the detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2007;73, 175–92. [doi: 10.3354/dao073175] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sabino-Pinto J, Krause ET, Bletz MC, Martel A, Pasmans F, Steinfartz S, et al. Detectability vs. time and costs in pooled DNA extraction of cutaneous swabs: a study on the amphibian chytrid fungi. Amphib-Reptil. 2019;40, 29–39. [doi: 10.1163/15685381-20181011] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Blooi M, Pasmans F, Longcore JE, Spitzen-van der Sluijs A, Vercammen F, Martel A. Duplex real-time PCR for rapid simultaneous detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in amphibian samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013;51, 4173–7. [doi: 10.1128/JCM.02313-13] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thomas V, Blooi M, Van Rooij P, Van Praet S, Verbrugghe E, Grasselli E, et al. Recommendations on diagnostic tools for Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018;1–11. [doi: 10.1111/tbed.12787] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Spitzen-van der Sluijs A, Stark T, DeJean T, Verbrugghe E, Herder J, Gilbert M, et al. Using environmental DNA for detection of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in natural water. Environmental DNA 2020;00, 1–7. [doi: 10.1002/edn3.86] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lastra González D, Baláž V, Vojar J, Chajma P. Dual detection of the chytrid fungi Batrachochytrium spp. with an enhanced environmental DNA approach. J. Fungi 2021;7, 258. [doi: 10.3390/jof7040258] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kitade T, Wakao K. 2022. Illuminating Amphibians: the amphibian trade in Japan. TRAFFIC https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/illuminating-amphibians-the-amphibian-trade-in-japan/ [Accessed 1st November 2022]
  • 21.Lastra González D, Baláž V, Chajma P, Vojar J. Surveying for Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans presence in Spanish captive collections of amphibians. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2020;142, 99–103. [doi: 10.3354/dao03535] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Stegen G, Pasmans F, Schmidt B, Rouffaer LO, Van Praet S, Schaub M, et al. Drivers of salamander extirpation mediated by Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. Nature 544, 353–356 (2017). doi: 10.1038/nature22059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

16 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-38081Disentangling the origin of the salamander killer fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lastra González,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

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 note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [David Lastra González is supported by the JSPS Postdoctoral fellowships for Research in Japan].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Ethics statement appears in the Methods section of the manuscript AND at the end of the manuscript:

Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This is an interesting study in the field of Bsal research, which is a dangerous amphibian pathogen in certain parts of the world, so far especially Europe. As Asia is considered the origin of Bsal, this study is an important contribution bringing to light novel knowledge. The “story” is sound, the introduction leads to the purpose of the paper and the methods are standard methods. Results are well described and convincing. The discussion refers to the significant points and emphasizes the importance of the finding in a critical view.

I like the paper and will be happy to see it published in PLoS ONE. I made some comments, see below, which might help the authors to improve their paper.

However, before acceptance, in many parts, the language is awkward. Maybe look for a native speaker to make corrections.

Title, line 1: I find the title a bit tough, as Bsal is not always a killer, especially not in Japan. I recommend to change the title to simply use the term “salamander chytrid fungus”

Introduction, line 53: Maybe rewrite as “in many parts of the world” instead of worldwide.

Line 59-63: True but a bit out of focus of the paper, I suggest to be more brief here.

Line 66 f: Emphasize here that this study and others (e.g. 6, 11, 12) have suggested already that Bsal is of Asian origin.

Line 84f. You should state here that also Bd was in your focus, as you studied both (mentioned in line 109).

Methods, line 94: delete “different” – 22 species, by definition, are different.

Results, line 128f.: Although important this I part of the method and was mentioned there already (line 114f.). Do not repeat method here. Move details to method section and rewrite.

Line 145f.: Add the reference number to the citation of Bloii et al. and Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al.

Discussion, line 164: “This evidence suggests a long-term relationship among host and pathogen…” Explain this a bit better.

Line 171f: “Bsal qPCR protocol was under discussion and considered not enough to claim a sample for being Bsal positive [17]. Thus, in summary. the qPCR Bsal protocol was said to tend to create false positives.” This likewise needs a better explanation for the reader.

Line 177: Yes, I agree you followed a “conservative” approach but still samples were not studied in different labs, which sometimes is considered a critical aspect, as well. Please consider to include this into the discussion here.

Line 193: Say “suggested sister species”.

Reviewer #2: Summary

This paper presents data on the prevalence of the fungal pathogen Bsal (and its congener Bd) in samples collected from multiple Japanese islands (as well as 2 samples from Myanmar). The authors find a low prevalence of Bsal-positive samples (comparable to that in other surveys in East and Southeast Asia), but some inconsistencies in detection between different diagnostic methods. In my opinion, the most useful contributions from this paper are the establishment of new Bsal localities in East Asia, some associated sequence data, and the detection in a species with no previous record of Bsal.

Major concerns

The paper is in need of substantial English-language editing throughout. The meaning of the text is often clear, but there are key passages where it is not, and key terms are not clearly defined. For example, it is hard to tell what species is being referred to in the description of the outbreak in NE Spain (Line 57)

There are a few places where I think the conclusions and interpretations don’t seem to be in line with the data. For example, the suggestion that “this part of Asia is the chytrid hotspot” in the abstract doesn’t seem consistent with their results and interpretations, but it is hard to tell if this is a language issue or an interpretation problem. Also, I think the authors should be more cautious about interpretations related to long-term endemism based on the limited data they provide.

The organization of the Introduction could be much clearer, including both the flow of ideas within paragraphs and the relationships between paragraphs. For example, there is a rather abrupt transition from Bsal to Bd on line 74, and there is a series of very short paragraphs between lines 59 and 71 that seem too small to stand on their own and don’t really flow together very well.

It would be good to have more discussion of why they got disparate results using different detection methods.

Specific comments

Line 54: Are the lesions themselves lethal? Or are they a symptom associated with severe disease, which causes death through other mechanisms?

Lines 56-58: Rewrite sentence for clarity.

Lines 59-63: Good points, but are not very clearly connected to the surrounding material in the Introduction, and may be less relevant for this particular study.

Lines 80-82: Meaning not clear

Line 95: The Introduction focuses on Japan, so I was a little bit surprised to see that there were samples from Myanmar as well. I didn’t see these mentioned anywhere else in the paper.

Line 117: Unclear what the 2nd derivative maximum was used for.

Table 1: Would be good to have the total number of samples per island listed somewhere

Line 162: I’m not sure why sampling effort would be related to infection load

Lines 164-165: Not clear how the data suggests long-term relationship and endemism.

Lines 170-180: The discussion of different diagnostic techniques seems useful. Would be good to flesh this out more, including adding more information about the differences in sensitivity between the assays used here and other approaches.

Line 186-188: Do we know that harsh winters decrease probability of detecting Bsal? Presumably the hosts are in habitats that are not quite so cold?

Lines 191-192: I agree that it is interesting and useful to expand the list of species on which Bsal has been detected.

Line 191-205: nice paragraph

Lines 210-211: I don’t think the current paper has enough data to support this point, and I’m not sure I agree with the logic (eg, there can be species in the introduced range that also tend to have low Bsal loads).

Lines 214-216: This sentence doesn’t seem to fit very well

Map figure: would be useful if this showed all sampled localities (not just the Bsal-positive ones)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_Lastra_et_al_PLoS_ONE.docx

pone.0305228.s002.docx (12.8KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Jun 13;19(6):e0305228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305228.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jan 2024

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

All your comments have been carefully implemented.

Thank you for your time and your comments.

Kind regards,

David Lastra González

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0305228.s003.docx (33.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

5 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-38081R1Disentangling the origin of the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lastra González,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors describe an extensive sampling of amphibians throughout Japan for chytrid fungi. Results are largely confirmatory of previous studies (eg Goka et al., 2009; Martel et al., 2014) but are sufficiently interesting to warrant publication. While in general, the study is fine, I would recommend addressing several issues:

Major concerns:

I only have one major concern and that is that sequencing a short (how much bp? Please mention) part of the ITS of the chytrid fungus B. salamandrivorans is not sufficient to make any inference about diversity. I am not sure whether I understood correctly, but sequences would all be 100% identical (and identical to the available sequence). The authors really should refrain from drawing any conclusions with regard to diversity / phylogeny based on these results. At most, the sequencing confirms that a short B. salamandrivorans ITS sequence is present in their samples. Hence, conclusions with regard to “origin”, “hotspot” or any inference with regard to epidemiology (eg recent colonization) must not be drawn. Such statements should be omitted from title, abstract and discussion, unless the authors would have performed additional analyses that do warrant conclusions with regard to B. salamandrivorans strain typing (eg strain isolation and sequencing).

Minor concerns:

1) There is an odd mentioning of two samples from Myanmar. It is difficult to understand how this fits the story. Suggestion to omit from this paper (does not really add anything useful). Also, if the authors would prefer to leave these samples in, please provide all permits (incl Nagoya protocol) from Myanmar to demonstrate legal original (+ correct the name in S1 to Tylototriton). However, there does not appear to be any sound, scientific rationale to include these two samples.

2) Results need revision; the table 1 is confusing and at the same time does not provide sufficient information. For example, the difference between the second and third column is unclear. The total number of sampled localities per island + the number of samples (pooled or not) examined should be summarized here. The same for the legend of S Table, which is equally difficult to understand. E.g. the legend states “detected by Blooi et al…”, where I guess the authors mean “detected by qPCR (according to Blooi et al.).

3) It is difficult to track any data that refer to prevalence or infection load. The authors used pooled and simple samples. This is ok, but pooling samples requires any conclusion to prevalence and infection loads to be nuanced (eg prevalence then is at pool level).

4) There is one issue where I would love to see an additional sentence and that is the potential of false positives (which includes the possibility of another organism with the same (short) ITS sequence). According to WOAH, diagnosis of B. salamandrivorans infection requires the use of two independent techniques (eg culturing or histopathology). Sequencing amplicons from a positive PCR is not considered an independent technique. I would like to stress this is not meant to disregard the authors’ results. I fully realize it is very difficult, if not impossible, to use an additional technique (culturing, histopathology), especially in low level infected populations. However, if not performed, it is impossible to discard the possibility of false positives (which has been the case in Europe, see eg Thomas et al. and which remains unexplained). I would therefore recommend to add a sentence along these lines: “Although qPCR is an established, reliable and robust technique and amplicons were identical to the published B. salamandrivorans sequence, the low level infections in the Japanese amphibians preclude the use of an independent diagnostic technique as required by the WOAH, hampering the possibility to exclude false positive results.”

**********

7. 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 #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 13;19(6):e0305228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305228.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Mar 2024

All your comments has been revised and answered in the "Response to reviewers" file. Have a nice day. David

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers.docx

pone.0305228.s004.docx (21.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

1 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-38081R2Disentangling the origin of the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lastra González,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Concerns have been addressed sufficiently. I commend the authors for their extensive study and have no further concerns.

Reviewer #4: The title is inaccurate. Their is no phylogenetic analysis in this paper or comparative measures of genetic diversity. A more appropriate title could be: 'An updated distribution of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in Japan’.

L41. It's prevalence - not incidence. And it is not high - it is actually very low compared to outbreak areas in Europe.

L48. 'Low variability' is a relative term. What are you comparing against? Epidemiologically speaking, low diversity indicates an invasion event (limited temporal time allowed for genetic diversity to accrue). So your data more accurately represents a recent invasion.

L108. What is the evidence that the metabarcoding marker that you have chosen has any phylogenetic resolution? O'Hanlon et al. has shown very clearly (see Supp Info tanglegram plots) that ITS-2 has no phylogenetic resolution for Bd.

L131. Sanger sequencing of what locus?

L223. This is a hypothesis. For instance in Europe only Salamandra is highly susceptible. Other species of newt tolerate infection or are resistant to infection.

**********

7. 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 13;19(6):e0305228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305228.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Apr 2024

All comments of the last reviewer (4th Reviewer) have been addressed on the Response to Reviewers file

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers.docx

pone.0305228.s005.docx (21.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

9 May 2024

PONE-D-23-38081R3Disentangling the origin of the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lastra González,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #4: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. 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 #4: Yes

**********

5. 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 #4: No

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: I still think the title is inaccurate. Even if your aim is to contribute to the elucidation of the origin of Bsal, your data do not say anything about this, so to include ‘“Disentangling the origin” is confusing.

As you argue in your replay, the term of incidence is confusing, so please replace the the term ‘incidence’ in the abstract or use another term to avoid misunderstandings.

As you agree in your replay, a low diversity usually indicates an invasion event. Therefore, please discuss this point more in detail in the discussion.

Regarding the use of ITS-2, again, your data do not tell us anything about the origin of Bsal and are only valuable for the distribution of Bsal.

Regarding your conclusions, again I think your data are not informative to say ‘this fungus has a long history in this region’.

Additionally, the sentence ‘The found prevalence existing in our monitoring, 1.6%, is lower than in other studies in presumably Bsal native countries’ is incorrect because a proportion of 11/650 (your study) is not significantly lower than 33/1143 (China) nor 17/583 (Vietnam; Z=1.572, p=0.1160; Z=1.44, p=0.1499; respectively).

**********

7. 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: Stefan Lötters

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 13;19(6):e0305228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305228.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


16 May 2024

6. 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: (No Response)

- Reviewer #4: I still think the title is inaccurate. Even if your aim is to contribute to the elucidation of the origin of Bsal, your data do not say anything about this, so to include ‘“Disentangling the origin” is confusing.

- DLG: The title has been modified as you suggested: Lack of variations in the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, at its alleged origin: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidence.

- As you argue in your replay, the term of incidence is confusing, so please replace the the term ‘incidence’ in the abstract or use another term to avoid misunderstandings.

DLG: In order to avoid this, the term high incidence has been changed by various cases.

- As you agree in your replay, a low diversity usually indicates an invasion event. Therefore, please discuss this point more in detail in the discussion.

- DLG: We have added your suggestion (low diversity could indicate an invasion event). It has been done in the area where we had discussed this matter (Line 212 in the current version).

- Regarding the use of ITS-2, again, your data do not tell us anything about the origin of Bsal and are only valuable for the distribution of Bsal.

- DLG: We are trying to show here the contrast between Bd and Bsal. We know that Bd has a high variability when sequenced in Okinawa (see for more Goka et al 2009, 2021). On the other hand, we have not detected any variability in the sequences obtained from Bsal in Okinawa. This situation and lack of variability among Bsal sequences could be interpreted as a difference in the time that both pathogens have been present in Okinawa, and I hope that you interpret our data in the same way.

- Regarding your conclusions, again I think your data are not informative to say ‘this fungus has a long history in this region’.

Additionally, the sentence ‘The found prevalence existing in our monitoring, 1.6%, is lower than in other studies in presumably Bsal native countries’ is incorrect because a proportion of 11/650 (your study) is not significantly lower than 33/1143 (China) nor 17/583 (Vietnam; Z=1.572, p=0.1160; Z=1.44, p=0.1499; respectively).

- DLG: We have revised the Conclusion to address your points. Our results do not suggest, as you say, that this fungus has a long history in the area, but we have at least stated that it is highly compatible with that idea. For example, If you check all the studies that have been done about Bsal in Asia, (China, Vietnam, and Taiwan), you may notice that after the first detection carried out in these countries Bsal was not detected in the same localities or even to confirm the Bsal presence in the country was not possible again. However if you have any problem with this term, I will be more specific and being less assertive, rephrasing the sentence in this manner: “Our study confirms the presence of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in Japan, suggesting that this fungus may have a longer history in this region in comparison other Asian countries where recurrent detection has not been achieved, and in addition, it is not causing obvious mass mortalities as it does in other parts of the world”.

About the second part, the numbers of the prevalence, we have not mentioned any statistical term along the text. Your calculations are correct, but we are talking about the raw numbers, and we were not including the word significant, so our information about the prevalence is correct. In order to avoid any misleading information for the reader we have included between brackets “(But not significantly lower”) and “slightly” lower in the part that you have mentioned. Please see the text, line 238.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers4.docx

pone.0305228.s006.docx (22.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

28 May 2024

Lack of variations in the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, at its alleged origin: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidence.

PONE-D-23-38081R4

Dear Dr. González,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: Regarding the MS by Lastra et al. "Lack of variations in the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, at its alleged origin: Updating its Japanese distribution with new evidence", I look forward to seeing it published.

**********

7. 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

**********

Acceptance letter

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

3 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-38081R4

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lastra González,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Dr. Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Detailed information about amphibian collected samples.

    *Bsal+ detected by Blooi et al. 2013 (less 40 Ct value, duplicate, sigmoidal curve). †Bsal+ detected by Blooi et al. 2013 (more qPCR positives than negatives as Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2020). ‡Bsal+ sequenced by Sanger and 100% identical amplicon as Genbank reference accession number KC762295.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0305228.s001.docx (55.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_Lastra_et_al_PLoS_ONE.docx

    pone.0305228.s002.docx (12.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0305228.s003.docx (33.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers.docx

    pone.0305228.s004.docx (21.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers.docx

    pone.0305228.s005.docx (21.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2-Response_to_reviewers4.docx

    pone.0305228.s006.docx (22.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. My submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of the study.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES