A systematic review of the distribution and prevalence of viruses detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus species complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)

Ally Finkbeiner; Ahmad Khatib; Nathan Upham; Beckett Sterner

doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125

. 2025 Jun 10;21(6):e1013125. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125

A systematic review of the distribution and prevalence of viruses detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus species complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)

Ally Finkbeiner ¹, Ahmad Khatib ², Nathan Upham ², Beckett Sterner ^2,^*

Editor: Jens H Kuhn³

PMCID: PMC12201646 PMID: 40493689

Abstract

The North American Deermouse, Peromyscus maniculatus, is one of the most widespread and abundant mammals on the continent. It is of public health interest as a known host of several viruses that are transmissible to humans and can cause illness, including the acute respiratory disease Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS). However, recent taxonomic studies indicate that P. maniculatus is a complex of multiple species, raising questions about how to identify and interpret three decades of hantavirus monitoring data. We conducted a systematic review investigating the prevalence and spatial distribution of viral taxa detected in wild populations allocated to P. maniculatus. From the 49 relevant studies published from 2000 to 2022, we extracted and analyzed spatial occurrence data to calculate weighted populational prevalences for hantaviruses. We found that detection efforts have been concentrated in the Western United States and Mexico with a focus on the spread of Sin Nombre virus (Orthohantavirus sinnombreense), the primary causative agent of HPS. There are significant gaps in the existing literature both geographically and regarding the kinds of viruses being sampled. These results are significantly impacted by a recent taxonomic split of P. maniculatus into four species, and we were able to update 94% of hantavirus observations to reflect this change. Investigating the uncertain, and likely multiple, phylogenetic histories of these viral hosts should be a key emphasis of future modeling efforts.

Author summary:

Understanding the interactions of viruses with mammal hosts is critical for monitoring disease spread and identifying species or geographic areas at high risk for future zoonotic disease outbreaks. However, much of the data scientists have collected about viruses in mammals remains fragmented in published literature and is not available in an up-to-date, standardized format online. We conducted a systematic review of virus observations in one of the most abundant, widespread group of rodent species in North America, the Peromyscus maniculatus (North American Deermouse) species complex. We extracted and analyzed the spatial distribution of 62,421 observations reporting the results of tests for viruses in the Hantaviridae, Arenaviridae, and Flaviviridae families. We find that conclusions about reservoir host status may be impacted by recent taxonomic proposals that split P. maniculatus into four distinct species, and we show how the taxonomic identifications of 94% of the reported observations can be updated using expert-generated maps of the ranges for the proposed new species. We also highlight the uneven geographic sampling of viruses in the rodent populations and major gaps that remain in our knowledge.

1. Introduction

This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature on virus detection studies of wild P. maniculatus in order to summarize findings from the last two decades and identify potential areas of further research (Fig 1). The North American Deermouse, Peromyscus maniculatus (J. A. Wagner, 1845) is one of the most abundant and widespread mammals native to the continent [1]. The genus Peromyscus sec. Mammal Diversity Database v1.12.1 [2–4] includes 82 recognized living species [3] and has been the subject of extensive research in ecology, development, genetics, evolution, and epidemiology [1,5–10]. P. maniculatus is of particular interest to the public health sector and has been traditionally well-studied because it is known to be a source of several diseases that are communicable to humans [9,11]. Research has been particularly focused on the North American Deermouse’s role as the primary host of Sin Nombre virus (SNV), an RNA virus in the genus Orthohantavirus which was first identified in 1993 and was recently renamed Orthohantavirus sinnombreense by the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses [12–15]. SNV and other New World hantaviruses are the causative agents of Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), an acute respiratory disease with a case fatality rate of 60% at the time of the first outbreaks [8]. From 1993 to 2021, a total of 850 cases of HPS have been reported in the United States [16], with most cases occurring in the Southwest (Fig 2). Despite the relative rarity of HPS cases compared to other hantavirus illnesses, the sudden emergence of the disease and potential for mutation has spurred intensive efforts to characterize the causative viral transmission pathways [18–21]. Modeling the risks of hantavirus disease and novel zoonoses remains an urgent research objective that depends on comprehensive, up-to-date information about pathogen prevalence and the ecological factors influencing disease spread [22,23].

We focus on a spatial analysis of sampling effort and prevalence in studies that tested for hantaviruses and arenaviruses. Our results thereby add to the evidence base for ongoing research into the co-evolution of North American rodents with viral pathogens. In addition, we discuss how study results are relevant for the reservoir host status of P. maniculatus considering recently proposed taxonomic revisions.

Multiple genetic studies indicate P. maniculatus is a species complex [24]. It was recently proposed to split P. maniculatus into between four and six species-level lineages [2,25,26], though this remains controversial [9]. According to the Mammal Diversity Database v1.12.1 [2–4], the P. maniculatus species complex is composed of four species that are distributed as follows: (i) throughout Northern and Central Mexico, referred to P. labecula D. G. Elliot, 1903; (ii) in southern California and Baja California, referred to P. gambelii (S. F. Baird, 1858); (iii) across the continental United States west of the Mississippi River and into northern Canada, referred to P. sonoriensis (Le Conte, 1853); and (iv) east of the Mississippi River until the Atlantic Ocean and north until the Hudson Bay, referred to P. maniculatus sensu stricto (J. A. Wagner, 1845) (Fig 3). The genetic distinctiveness of P. gambelii and P. sonoriensis from each other and from P. keeni in the Pacific Northwest [9] supports the existence of multiple species within what has been typically referred to as “P. maniculatus” in ecological and biomedical studies. The latter identifications are now referrable to the continentally distributed P. maniculatus sensu lato, and thus require re-interpretation relative to these alternative taxonomic hypotheses.

While hantavirus prevalence is the primary focus of biomedical research on wild-caught P. maniculatus, some evidence suggests that rodents in this group may potentially be susceptible to infection by other zoonotic viruses connected with human fatalities, including SARS-CoV-2, flaviviruses associated with tick-borne encephalitis, and arenaviruses [27–29]. Members of this deermouse species complex can be found in every terrestrial ecosystem across the North American continent, including peridomestic areas resulting in frequent contact with humans. Numerous field studies have been conducted on North American Deermice to determine virus prevalence and distribution, especially in regions where outbreaks have previously occurred. These field studies have detected novel viruses and genetic sequencing has allowed researchers to build up-to-date virus and host phylogenies, but, as we show here, the approach to zoonotic virus monitoring in deermice has not been consistent or standardized.

2. Results

Studies have sampled populations in the P. maniculatus species complex across 11 different U.S. states, six states in Mexico, and one Canadian province since 2000. Considering 62,663 unique observations across 49 studies, we are able to assign geographic locations to 62,421 (99.6%) at the county (U.S.) or province level (Canada and Mexico). This includes observations that we split evenly across counties when studies only reported aggregate results for two or more counties. While we focus only on observations related to the P. maniculatus complex, we note that the full extracted dataset in S3 Table includes observations from over 100 rodent species and that about a third of these had positive test results for an arenavirus, flavivirus or hantavirus. This highlights the taxonomic scope of rodent-virus “dark data” published in scientific articles that is not readily available for open science modeling and research [30].

Scopus returns the largest number of potential papers compared to other databases, regardless of the type of search query used in the literature review (S1 Table). PubMed Central produces more potential papers than PubMed when the search queries are broad, though the latter returns nearly 5 times as many papers when the search query includes virus-related terms as well as host species names. We find that for this particular species, inclusion of common names and junior synonyms in search queries has only marginal effects (<1%) on the total number of citations returned across all three databases. However, this result excludes some additional references that are returned by searching for the common names “deer mice” and “deer mouse,” which are not recognized by MDD and are sometimes also used to refer to the whole genus Peromyscus. A supplementary search with “deer mice” and “deer mouse” identified three additional papers meeting our inclusion criteria. The small effect of including synonyms on search results may be due to the relatively recent application of alternative species names to populations in the P. maniculatus species complex [25,26]. Studies of the influence of including synonyms on search results for other taxa have found larger effects [31,32].

The primary serological method used across all studies is ELISA, though RT-PCR and IFAT, among other tools, are also performed (S2 Table). SNV is the primary target of 40 studies. One study reports results for Monongahela virus, which is now part of SNV according to recent taxonomic updates by the ICTV [33]. Two studies report on the arenavirus species Whitewater Arroyo mammarenavirus (WWAV) and Amapari virus (AMAV), and one study reports on the flavivirus Powassan virus (POWV). Additionally, five studies explicitly sought to detect Hantaviridae or Arenaviridae antibodies at the family level and do not report results at the virus species level. The seroprevalence ranges greatly across studies from 0% to 100% of individuals sampled in each subpopulation. Sampling effort varies as well, with the smallest study reporting 5 unique observations and the largest reporting 11,391.

We find that interpreting the specificity of reported SNV antibody detection results involves making implicit background assumptions that are not typically stated in the metadata associated with existing species interaction databases. Of the 40 studies reporting antibody results for SNV, 38 use detection methods targeting the nucleocapsid protein on the S segment as the antigen. The remaining two antibody studies [34,35] used a test based on antigen sourced from the lysate of Vero E6 cells infected by Prospect Hill Virus strain PHV1 [36]. Since the nucleocapsid protein is widely conserved among hantaviruses, antibody tests based on this protein in one hantavirus species will also be broadly cross-reactive with other hantaviruses. However, if SNV is the only hantavirus species actually present in P. maniculatus, then the antibody tests can still be interpreted as detecting SNV.

To investigate the conclusion that SNV is the only hantavirus species detected in the P. maniculatus species complex to date, we analyzed the phylogenetic history of all available hantavirus nucleotide sequences identified with P. maniculatus as the host (S1–S3 Figs). For each segment (S, M, and L), almost all hantavirus sequences clustered most closely with the SNV reference sequence compared to other hantavirus reference sequences. The notable exceptions are S segment sequences collected in Texas in 1995 by Rawlings et al. [37] and classified as El Moro Canyon virus (Orthohantavirus carrizalense). For all other M and S sequences, bootstrap support of 98 and 86, respectively, supported the clustering of P. maniculatus-derived sequences with the SNV reference. For the L segment, a bootstrap value of 100 supports the exclusion of 25 non-SNV reference sequences from the SNV reference and the P. maniculatus-derived sequences. The specificity of reported antibody tests is also supported by evidence from studies using PCR tests, which target both the S and M segments and should therefore be sufficient to distinguish SNV from other sequences. In particular, the interpretation of antibody tests as detecting SNV is confirmed by 8 studies that used PCR tests to confirm positive hantavirus antibody results (S2 Table).

With these results in mind, we find that studies reporting SNV results span the longitudinal range from California to Indiana (Fig 4). One or more studies about SNV-P. maniculatus interactions has been published in almost every year since 2000. Other viruses are sampled less frequently and at a lower volume, with a maximum number of observations of 353 for both WWAV and AMAV collected in a single study (S2 Table). POWV and arenavirus are investigated in only a single study each. In New Mexico, one study reported finding POWV in P. maniculatus, but precise details on location are unavailable [38]. In Texas, multiple studies focused on detecting arenaviruses in P. maniculatus, including WWAV and AMAV.

Since 2000, sampling has been concentrated on the western half of the U.S. despite the fact that rodents in the P. maniculatus species complex can be found across the entirety of North America (Figs 2 and 3). Counties in Montana, Utah, and Colorado had the highest average sampling effort, with fifteen different counties hosting more than 1,500 unique observations each. This increased level of observations is partially due to multiple studies being carried out in the same county, as some locations are sites of more than one study while others are only sampled once within the last 23 years (S2 Table). In studies that took place over multiple counties, all collection sites are represented. One study is published from Indiana and another from West Virginia, but the rest of the U.S. Midwest and East Coast are not sampled for P. maniculatus during the focal interval of 2000–2022.

Sampling effort is more evenly distributed across geographic locations than across virus types. In terms of the number of studies conducted in each state, Montana has twelve while Nevada, Arizona, West Virginia, Oregon, and Indiana each boast one (S2 Table). However, the number of studies alone does not accurately represent the total sampling effort in a geographic area; both West Virginia and Oregon only host one study, but the former has a total of 15 observations while the latter has 3,175. Montana has the highest number of observations at 29,857, while Colorado and Utah have the second and third highest counts with 11,794 and 7,889, respectively.

As the number of reported observations increases between 2000 and 2022, so do the number of locations sampled. However, the total number of localities sampled across this time period is only 22 within 11 U.S. states as well as Mexico and Canada, which does not accurately cover the entire range of rodents within the P. maniculatus species complex.

The dominance of studies aimed at detecting SNV appears to correlate with historical data on the risk of HPS (Fig 5). There is a moderate positive relationship between the number of reported human HPS cases in a location and the sampling effort in that location (coefficient = 0.06, standard error = 0.008, no intercept; R² = 0.52; p-value < 0.0001). This trend, however, is driven strongly by a handful of data points. Notably, Montana and Utah are overrepresented in terms of sampling effort compared to the number of historic HPS cases in those locations (studentized residuals of 4.7 and 3.7, respectively). On the other hand, Alberta, Arizona, and Washington are undersampled relative to HPS cases (studentized residuals of -2.2, -2.1, -1.8, respectively).

The highest average seroprevalences are found in New Mexico and California, with Rio Arriba, Cibola, and Inyo counties all reporting greater than 40% of individuals as positive (S2 Table). The majority of counties hovers between seropositivity levels of 10% and 30% of sampled rodents (Fig 6). Several counties in southern California, which fall within the range of P. gambelii, find no rodents with virus antibodies among those sampled (S2 Table and Fig 6).

The total number of unique virus species confirmed across all studies is four (S2 Table). The relationship between the number of observations and the number of virus species identified in the literature is not linear. This is because the overwhelming majority of studies are focused on SNV antibodies and thus add to the volume of observations without introducing a novel virus.

Most of the gathered studies are conducted within the range of the proposed species P. sonoriensis, which covers most of the western U.S. including the aforementioned states of Montana, Utah, and Colorado (Fig 7). Sampling is also conducted within the ranges of three other putative species within the P. maniculatus species complex: P. gambelii, P. labecula, and P. maniculatus (sensu stricto). The arenavirus studies correspond with the range of P. labecula, while the SNV and hantavirus studies are concentrated within the range of P. sonoriensis.

Based on the non-overlapping expert species range maps (i.e., reciprocally allopatric), we are able to assign 94% (58,845 out of 62,421) of all observations unambiguously to one of the four species (S4 Table). The other 6% are ambiguous with respect to two or more species. We assign an observation unambiguously to a species if the boundaries of the corresponding county or province fall entirely within the range of that species. In some cases, the county or province boundaries fall partly or wholly outside the range of all four species, which we assign unambiguously to a species only if the county or province boundaries overlapped with a single species. Of the 94% of observation that we could assign, P. sonoriensis received by far the most assignments (90%) compared to 6% for P. gambelii, 2% for P. maniculatus sensu stricto, and <1% for P. labecula.

3. Discussion

Zoonotic viruses in the species complex P. maniculatus have been non-systematically monitored over the last 20 + years. In scientific literature published since 2000, we found reports of 62,663 unique observations of wild P. maniculatus (sensu lato) interacting with four different virus species from three viral families. We also noted a fifth species, El Moro Canyon virus (Orthohantavirus carrizalense), which was collected in Texas during a 1995 study outside our review scope. This body of research covers 11 unique U.S. states as well as regions in Mexico and Canada, but it does not reflect the entirety of the range of the P. maniculatus species complex, indicating that there are significant gaps in the literature within the 2000 – 2022 period.

Sampling effort varied significantly by both geographical location and virus genotype, with Sin Nombre virus (SNV) overrepresented in the literature relative to other virus families, especially in the states of Montana and Colorado. With 82% of the studies reporting on SNV, the SNV prevalence in P. maniculatus over the last 22 years is likely the best representation of hantaviral sharing dynamics in this group of rodents. Results on Powassan virus, Whitewater Arroyo Virus, and Amapari virus are informative in that they indicate the presence of other virus families within the P. maniculatus complex. However, further conclusions cannot be drawn about the distribution of these virus families without additional targeted sampling.

This systematic review suggests that, over time, even as more populations referrable to the P. maniculatus species complex are being sampled for zoonotic viruses, new viruses are not being discovered. While at first glance this may suggest that virus sampling for P. maniculatus is adequate, it more likely indicates that sampling efforts have not been sufficiently dedicated to discovering other known or novel viruses [7]. Instead, researchers have been targeting Sin Nombre virus using antibody and PCR tests given their focus on understanding the public health risks posed by the distribution and prevalence of certain known viruses. Hantaviruses in general were sampled far more than arenaviruses or flaviviruses, which reflects public health concerns relative to HPS cases. However, both arenaviruses and flaviviruses are known to be capable of spreading to humans [39,40], suggesting that increased sampling effort dedicated to these viral families will provide valuable public health information.

Only 22% of U.S. states were represented in the literature even though the P. maniculatus species complex is widespread across the continental U.S. except for the Southeast, where other Peromyscus species are found (e.g., P. polionotus, P. leucopus). While Indiana and West Virginia each received only one study, the rest of the U.S. Midwest and East Coast has remained unsampled for P. maniculatus-to-hantavirus interactions despite regional virus detection studies being conducted in other rodent species over the same time period [41–43]. HPS disease cases have been reported only sparingly in states east of the Mississippi since 1993 (Fig 2), so it is unsurprising that recent sampling efforts have not been dedicated to these regions where the risk of disease transmission to humans is sufficiently low (Fig 4). Interestingly, a handful of states where a significant number of HPS have historically been reported—Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota—were not sampled for P. maniculatus occurrences in any of the studies, even though new cases have occurred in each of these places within the last decade [16].

Among the geographic locations that were sampled (Fig 4), most populations fall largely within the subdivided range of P. sonoriensis, and the dominant virus over this range was SNV (Fig 7). Surprisingly, only two sampling locations are now associated with P. maniculatus sensu stricto: Marion County, Indiana, and Randolph County, West Virginia. The latter was found positive for Monongahela virus, which is now grouped taxonomically with SNV, and the former was a positive for a generic hantavirus ELISA test.

Seroprevalence varied greatly across geographic regions, and the associated variation in sampling effort makes it difficult to draw conclusions about regional trends of virus prevalence. Several counties in Montana, Utah, and Colorado reported seropositivity of greater than 30%, while numerous studies conducted in counties in California, New Mexico, and Texas found zero positive individuals. Since sampling effort was highly inconsistent across all locations, the seropositivity results should be considered as reflections of not only the prevalence of hantavirus in the given region but also of the number of rodents sampled and the time period over which sampling took place. Additionally, many of the studies we included investigated demographic and ecological factors that may influence Sin Nombre prevalence, including rodent age and sex, biotic interactions with other rodent species, and abiotic effects from temperature and rainfall [e.g., 44–46,35]. More consistent and even sampling efforts across the wider range of P. maniculatus would be necessary to more conclusively investigate the geographic trends in virus prevalence.

The virus detection dataset we extracted (S3 Table) represents the combined detection results reported by multiple long-term ecological monitoring studies as well as short-term sampling studies. Prior analyses of these studies have explored important environmental and behavioral hypotheses about the likely causes of Sin Nombre outbreaks in humans [e.g., 47–53]. Especially in arid environments such as the desert Southwest, models have shown support for increased precipitation as a key driver of P. maniculatus abundance and Sin Nombre prevalence. Ecological interactions with predators and other rodent species may also be important factors influencing abundance and prevalence, especially in wetter environments. Since human cases often occur from infected rodents living in close proximity to humans, especially in and around buildings, this suggests that land development and rodent habitat preferences also play an important role in shaping exposure risk [49,54,55]. Our study did not investigate these hypotheses directly, but the dataset we have assembled here can contribute to future models aggregating across multiple sites and time periods.

We also note that virus taxonomy is changing in parallel with the proposed revisions to P. maniculatus [56]. The recent taxonomic union of Sin Nombre virus and New York virus, for example, would implicate both P. maniculatus and P. leucopus as reservoir hosts for different strains of a single virus species whose range spans from the Pacific to Atlantic coasts of North America. This viral taxonomic change is based on hierarchical genetic clustering, in part due to the high similarity of nucleoprotein and glycoprotein amino acid sequences of Sin Nombre and New York viruses. However, a human HPS patient infected with the New York variant showed no serologic reactivity to the Sin Nombre glycoprotein, potentially indicating different seroneutralization responses in humans [57].

Further topics for research include a deeper investigation into the evidence for particular Peromyscus species as reservoir hosts for hantavirus and other species. Scientific definitions of reservoir host status vary significantly and prioritize different types of biological relationships and evidence, ranging from simple detection in a host to persistent pathogen maintenance with or without serious symptoms or a history of co-evolution [58–64]. Historically, hantaviruses were thought to closely co-evolve with single host species responsible for indefinitely maintaining the pathogen in the environment. Recent analyses have added nuance to this picture, showing that a number of hantavirus species infect multiple rodent hosts. More generally, biologists increasingly define reservoir hosts as composed of meta-populations or ecological assemblages of multiple species. Our results provide evidence that P. maniculatus sensu stricto is not the reservoir host for Sin Nombre virus in the narrow sense of being the sole biological species responsible for the pathogen’s maintenance. Instead, evidence suggests that Sin Nombre virus has multiple reservoir host species, especially in light of the taxonomic union of Sin Nombre and New York viruses. More broadly, the Peromyscus genus is likely not monophyletic [65–67], indicating the need for an expanded survey of what is known about viral pathogens in other North American rodent species. In this respect, we lack an up-to-date, comprehensive analysis of the evidence for rodent reservoirs of hantaviruses that is consistent with leading frameworks for assessing future zoonotic disease risk [68].

Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and other diseases spread via zoonotic viruses pose an ongoing risk to human health in the United States and surrounding areas. Rodents within the P. maniculatus species complex have been identified as hosts for the viruses that cause HPS and other human diseases, but the recent scientific literature on virus prevalence in this group of species has many gaps, both in terms of the types of viruses being sampled and the geographic regions in which sampling is occurring. Viral sampling has been uneven relative to the number of known human HPS cases. Taxonomic changes in the P. maniculatus species complex have large (and quantifiable) impacts on our knowledge of SNV prevalence and thus also HPS risk. Therefore, future work is needed to establish a systematic framework for sampling wild rodent hosts of hantaviruses, both to optimize the allocation of resources and identify regions and populations that pose disproportionate threats to human health.

4. Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic review of existing literature reporting observations of zoonotic viruses in the Peromyscus maniculatus species complex. The focal taxon was P. maniculatus sensu lato, and the outcomes were positive or negative test results using a range of detection methods. Examples of this include antibody tests, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests, and genetic sequencing. Three databases, Scopus, PubMed, and PubMed Central, were used to find existing scientific literature on this topic. Search queries were conducted in August 2022 with the common and scientific names of P. maniculatus as well as nomenclatural synonyms and the keywords “virus”, “viral”, and “viruses” (Table 1). Through these parameters, 448 papers were identified as potential candidates for the systematic review.

Table 1. Search terms used in conducting the systematic review of existing literature across three separate databases. Common names as well as scientific names for species within the P. maniculatus species complex were included.

Database	Search Query Used	Search Settings Used
PubMed	(virus OR viral OR viruses) AND (“Peromyscus maniculatus” OR “Peromyscus gracilis” OR “Peromyscus bairdi” OR “Peromyscus abietorium” OR “Peromyscus nubiterrae” OR “Peromyscus argentatus” OR “Peromyscus eremus” OR “Peromyscus anticostiensis” OR “Peromyscus plumbeus” OR “Peromyscus gambelii” OR “Peromyscus labecula” OR “Peromyscus arcticus” OR “Peromyscus sonoriensis” OR “Eastern Deermouse” OR “North American Deermouse”)	Title/Abstract
PubMed Central		Abstract OR Body-All Words OR Title
Scopus	“Peromyscus maniculatus” OR “Peromyscus gracilis” OR “Peromyscus bairdi” OR “Peromyscus abietorium” OR “Peromyscus nubiterrae” OR “Peromyscus argentatus” OR “Peromyscus eremus” OR “Peromyscus anticostiensis” OR “Peromyscus plumbeus” OR “Peromyscus gambelii” OR “Peromyscus labecula” OR “Peromyscus arcticus” OR “Peromyscus sonoriensis” OR “Eastern Deermouse” OR “North American Deermouse” AND virus OR viral OR viruses	TITLE-ABSTRACT-KEY

Open in a new tab

We also added 6 ad hoc papers from other sources. Three of these [69–71] were found when we ran a supplementary search in all three databases at the reviewers’ suggestion to identify any papers that used the common names “deer mice,” “deermice,” “deer mouse,” or “deermouse.” To avoid duplication of effort, we constructed these searches to return only papers that used any of these common names but did not mention “Peromyscus maniculatus.” For example, the supplementary PubMed search query was: “(virus OR viral OR viruses) AND (“Deermouse” OR “Deermice” OR “Deer mouse” OR “Deer Mice”) NOT (“Peromyscus maniculatus”).”

We used the CADIMA web tool to review articles for inclusion [72]. We uploaded lists of identified papers from each source to CADIMA, after which we removed duplicates, resulting in 253 remaining papers. Each paper was manually reviewed by AF for inclusion, and a second person (BS) was consulted on unclear cases. Inclusion criteria were that the article must report new primary data about the results of testing wild P. maniculatus for virus occurrence or infection. For reasons of scope, we excluded lab studies based on artificial infection experiments as well as papers published prior to 2000. We excluded 192 papers for one or more of the following reasons: not having a full text available in English through interlibrary loan or subscription services at the author’s home institution, not meeting the inclusion criteria, or being published before the cutoff period. This left 49 papers for data extraction from the systematic review process (Fig 1). The full list of included and excluded studies is available in S2 Table.

Data extraction entailed reading each scientific paper in full and extracting relevant information on sampling time, sampling location, number of hosts, various host identifiers, detection method used, material sampled, and the results of observations into a spreadsheet (S4 Table). Information on all species captured and sampled was recorded for future use, though this study focuses solely on detection presented in P. maniculatus (S3 Table). Summary results for P. maniculatus are available in S5 Table.

To visually represent the patterns discovered in the extracted data, we created a series of maps using the Tableau software program [73]. Spatially coded results were taken from the data extraction spreadsheet and translated into the maps on either the county, province, or state level, depending on whether the sample was taken in the United States, Canada, or Mexico, respectively.

Sampling effort was represented by the number of observations, which are defined as the number of times a unique host was tested for a unique virus using a specific method. Hence, if an individual rodent was tested by ELISA for both Whitewater Arroyo virus (WWAV) and Amapari virus (AMAV), this was recorded as two separate observations. Similarly, there would be multiple observations reported if an individual rodent was tested for the same virus multiple times in a recapture study. This way of individuating observations therefore provides a more fine-grained basis for collecting and analyzing test results. In the case of counties that were the site of multiple studies, the observations across each study were summed to create a single value which was then reflected in the map.

In the rare instance where one county was sampled for multiple virus species, the higher-order classification of virus species was used to create the maps. For example, if one study reported sampling for SNV and a separate study conducted in the same county tested for hantavirus antibodies but not for a specific virus species within that family, the county was represented as a hantavirus county on the map. However, all results for each type of virus tested are available in S4 Table.

Virus prevalence was determined as the percentage of antibody-positive P. maniculatus reported by each study. For sampling locales with multiple studies and thus multiple prevalence results to consider, the reported prevalence results were taken and weighted by sampling effort in order to avoid over-representing results from studies that tested a smaller number of rodents. The county estimates were calculated according to the following equation:

P_{c} = \sum w_{s} \times p_{s}

The weights w_s are the number of rodents tested for that pathogen in each study divided by the sum of all rodents tested. Thus, the weights relative to a county sum to 1. The weight for each study is multiplied by the seroprevalence proportion p_s from each study, calculated as the number of positive tests divided by the total [74]. Weighting is important to account for the relative precision of different studies in estimating the mean prevalence of the pathogen in the host population.

To assess the richness and distribution of the viruses detected across the selected literature, we processed the data into cumulative measures of sampling effort by virus type and geographic location. Geographic regions were analyzed at the county level for the United States and the state or province level for any other sampling locales. To track how sampling effort has been distributed over time, the relationship between the number of observations reported and (a) the number of viruses identified and (b) the number of unique locations sampled were also examined.

To assess the feasibility of accurately distinguishing SNV from other hantaviruses using DNA sequence data, we downloaded 79 sequences of hantavirus with Peromyscus maniculatus as the host from the ZOVER database on 4 Nov 2024. We then aligned those empirical sequences to verified NCBI RefSeq sequences from 28 hantavirus species (downloaded 8 Nov 2024), separately partitioning the M, S, and L segments for alignment. Sequences from El Moro Canyon virus were subsequently added to the S-segment phylogeny to assess its phylogenetic placement related to SNV (downloaded 17 Mar 2025). Alignments were made using MAFFT v7.490 software [75] and maximum likelihood trees were constructed using RAxML v8.2.12 [76], specifying the GAMMA+CAT model performing 100 bootstrap replicates.

Supporting information

S1 PRISMA Checklist. Completed checklist for systematic reviews following the 2020 PRISMA Standard [77].

(DOCX)

ppat.1013125.s001.docx^{(267.9KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus S genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

The sequence label in red is the Sin Nombre reference sequence from NCBI. Sequences highlighted in pink are El Moro Canyon virus (Orthohantavirus carrizalense) collected in 1996 by Rawlings et al. [36]. P. maniculatus sequences highlighted in blue are used for orientation across the S, M, and L segments, since these sequences are all derived from a single study [37].

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s002.pdf^{(115.9KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus M genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

The sequence label in red is the Sin Nombre reference sequence from NCBI. P. maniculatus sequences highlighted in blue are used for orientation across the S, M, and L segments, since these sequences are all derived from a single study [37].

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s003.pdf^{(118.3KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus L genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s004.pdf^{(106.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Summary of search queries and results from Scopus, PubMed, and PubMed Central databases.

The first three search queries show how results depend on the use of scientific and common name synonyms for P. maniculatus. The final search query shows the number of results from each database used as inputs for the systematic review process.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s005.xlsx^{(20KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Numbered list of included and excluded studies from the systematic review.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s006.xlsx^{(54.1KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Summary of sampling locations, effort, seroprevalence, detection method, and target virus in each study included in the review.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s007.xlsx^{(66.3KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. Comprehensive table of all data extracted from the included studies.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s008.xlsx^{(569.3KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Intermediate results for calculating weighted prevalences at the county level in the U.S. and province level in Canada and Mexico.

Summary statistics of human HPS cases and rodent and virus sampling efforts.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s009.xlsx^{(51.6KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to DeeAnn Reeder, Jorrit Poelen, and Donat Agosti for sharing their insights and suggestions on data extraction and synthesis methods. We’d also like to recognize several other Arizona State University undergraduate students who have assisted this project along the way, including Linnea Donovan, Gwen Calaro, and Tanishq Jain.

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

The project stemmed from Arizona State University President’s Special Initiative Funds to BS. NU was supported by National Institutes of Health grants 5R01GM152813-02 and 1R35GM156919-01. BS was supported by National Institutes of Health grant 1R21AI164268-01/02. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Bedford NL, Hoekstra HE. Peromyscus mice as a model for studying natural variation. eLife. 2015;4:e06813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Peromyscus maniculatus. Mammal Diversity Database. https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1002307. 2024. 2024 June 14. [Google Scholar]
3.Mammal Diversity Database. Mammal Diversity Database. https://zenodo.org/records/10595931. 2024. 2024 June 14. [Google Scholar]
4.Burgin CJ, Colella JP, Kahn PL, Upham NS. How many species of mammals are there?. Journal of Mammalogy. 2018;99(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
5.Shorter KR, Crossland JP, Webb D, Szalai G, Felder MR, Vrana PB. Peromyscus as a mammalian epigenetic model. Genet Res Int. 2012;2012:e179159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Vrana PB, Shorter KR, Szalai G, Felder MR, Crossland JP, Veres M, et al. Peromyscus (deer mice) as developmental models. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2014;3(3):211–30. doi: 10.1002/wdev.132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Milholland MT, Castro-Arellano I, Suzán G, Garcia-Peña GE, Lee TE Jr, Rohde RE, et al. Global Diversity and Distribution of Hantaviruses and Their Hosts. Ecohealth. 2018;15(1):163–208. doi: 10.1007/s10393-017-1305-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Guralnick R, Hantak MM, Li D, McLean BS. Body size trends in response to climate and urbanization in the widespread North American deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8882. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65866-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Boria RA, Blois JL. Phylogeography within the Peromyscus maniculatus species group: understanding past distribution of genetic diversity and areas of refugia in western North America. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023;180:107701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Chapman OS, McLean BS. Seasonal and sex-specific changes in the gastrointestinal tracts of Peromyscus maniculatus. J Mammal. 2023;104(6):1364–76. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyad086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Chen RX, Gong HY, Wang X, Sun MH, Ji YF, Tan SM. Zoonotic Hantaviridae with Global Public Health Significance. Viruses. 2023;15(8):1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Nichol ST, Spiropoulou CF, Morzunov S, Rollin PE, Ksiazek TG, Feldmann H. Genetic identification of a hantavirus associated with an outbreak of acute respiratory illness. Science. 1993;262(5135):914–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Childs JE, Colby L, Krebs JW, Strine T, Feller M, Noah D. Surveillance and spatiotemporal associations of rabies in rodents and lagomorphs in the United States, 1985-1994. J Wildl Dis. 1997;33(1):20–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Ubelaker J, Rácz G. A checklist of parasites of Peromyscus maniculatus in North America. MANTER J Parasite Biodivers. 2022. [Google Scholar]
15.Postler T, Bradfute S, Calisher C, Klingström J, Laenen L, Maes P, et al. Rename all species in the family to comply with the ICTV-mandated binomial format (Bunyavirales: Hantaviridae). International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. 2021. https://ictv.global/ictv/proposals/2021.013M.Hantaviridae_sprename.zip [Google Scholar]
16.Centers For Disease Control. Reported Cases of Hantavirus Disease. 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20240307003345/ https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/surveillance/index.html [Google Scholar]
17.Warner BM, Dowhanik S, Audet J, Grolla A, Dick D, Strong JE. Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome in Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(12):3020–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.MacNeil A, Ksiazek TG, Rollin PE. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, United States, 1993–2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(7):1195–201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Vigueras-Galván AL, López-Pérez AM, García-Peña GE, Rico-Chávez O, Sarmiento-Silva RE, Suzán G. Current Situation and Perspectives on Hantaviruses in Mexico. Viruses. 2019;11(7):642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Avšič-Županc T, Saksida A, Korva M. Hantavirus infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;:e6-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Kuhn JH, Schmaljohn CS. A Brief History of Bunyaviral Family Hantaviridae. Diseases. 2023;11(1):38. doi: 10.3390/diseases11010038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Mills JN, Amman BR, Glass GE. Ecology of hantaviruses and their hosts in North America. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10(6):563–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Mull N, Carlson CJ, Forbes KM, Becker DJ. Virus isolation data improve host predictions for New World rodent orthohantaviruses. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91(6):1290–302. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Dragoo JW, Lackey JA, Moore KE, Lessa EP, Cook JA, Yates TL. Phylogeography of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) provides a predictive framework for research on hantaviruses. J Gen Virol. 2006;87(Pt 7):1997–2003. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81576-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Bradley R, Lindsey L. Mitochondrial DNA sequence data indicate evidence for multiple species within Peromyscus maniculatus. Spec Publ Mus Tex Tech Univ. 2019;25. [Google Scholar]
26.Greenbaum IF, Honeycutt RL, Chirhart SE. Taxonomy and phylogenetics of the Peromyscus maniculatus species group. Spec Publ Mus Tex Tech Univ. 2019. [Google Scholar]
27.Griffin BD, Chan M, Tailor N, Mendoza EJ, Leung A, Warner BM, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in the North American deer mouse. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):3612. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23848-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Ebel GD. Update on Powassan virus: emergence of a North American tick-borne flavivirus. Annual Review of Entomology. 2010;55:95–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Reignier T, Oldenburg J, Flanagan ML, Hamilton GA, Martin VK, Cannon PM. Receptor use by the Whitewater Arroyo virus glycoprotein. Virology. 2008;371(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Upham NS, Poelen JH, Paul D, Groom QJ, Simmons NB, Vanhove MPM. Liberating host–virus knowledge from biological dark data. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(10):e746-50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Guala GF. The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Remsen D. The use and limits of scientific names in biological informatics. ZooKeys. 2016;550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Kuhn J, Bradfute S, Calisher C, Klempa B, Klingström J, Laenen L, et al. Reevaluate and reorganize family Hantaviridae (order Bunyavirales). 2023.035M. International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. 2023. [Google Scholar]
34.Biggs JR, Bennett KD, Torrez-Martinez N, Hjelle BL. Sin Nombre Virus Antibody Prevalence in Rodents of North-Central New Mexico. Southwest Nat. 2000;45(1):61–6. [Google Scholar]
35.Danforth ME, Messenger S, Buttke D, Weinburke M, Carroll G, Hacker G, et al. Long-Term Rodent Surveillance after Outbreak of Hantavirus Infection, Yosemite National Park, California, USA, 2012. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(3):560–7. doi: 10.3201/eid2603.191307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Childs JE, Ksiazek TG, Spiropoulou CF, Krebs JW, Morzunov S, Maupin GO, et al. Serologic and genetic identification of Peromyscus maniculatus as the primary rodent reservoir for a new hantavirus in the southwestern United States. J Infect Dis. 1994;169(6):1271–80. doi: 10.1093/infdis/169.6.1271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Rawlings JA, Torrez-Martinez N, Neill SU, Moore GM, Hicks BN, Pichuantes S, et al. Cocirculation of multiple hantaviruses in Texas, with characterization of the small (S) genome of a previously undescribed virus of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1996;55(6):672–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1996.55.672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Deardorff ER, Nofchissey RA, Cook JA, Hope AG, Tsvetkova A, Talbot SL. Powassan Virus in Mammals, Alaska and New Mexico, USA, and Russia, 2004–2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(12):2012–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Charrel RN, de Lamballerie X. Zoonotic aspects of arenavirus infections. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(3):213–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Pierson TC, Diamond MS. The continued threat of emerging flaviviruses. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5(6):796–812. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0714-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Lyubsky S, Gavrilovskaya I, Luft B, Mackow E. Histopathology of Peromyscus leucopus naturally infected with pathogenic NY-1 hantaviruses: pathologic markers of HPS viral infection in mice. Lab Invest. 1996;74(3):627–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Luong LT, Vigliotti BA, Campbell S, Comer JA, Mills JN, Hudson PJ. Dynamics of hantavirus infection in Peromyscus leucopus of central Pennsylvania. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11(11):1459–64. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2010.0255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Mlera L, Meade-White K, Saturday G, Scott D, Bloom ME. Modeling Powassan virus infection in Peromyscus leucopus, a natural host. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(1):e0005346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Calisher CH, Wagoner KD, Amman BR, Root JJ, Douglass RJ, Kuenzi AJ. Demographic factors associated with prevalence of antibody to Sin Nombre virus in deer mice in the western United States. J Wildl Dis. 2007;43(1):1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Previtali MA, Lehmer EM, Pearce-Duvet JMC, Jones JD, Clay CA, Wood BA, et al. Roles of human disturbance, precipitation, and a pathogen on the survival and reproductive probabilities of deer mice. Ecology. 2010;91(2):582–92. doi: 10.1890/08-2308.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Carver S, Kuenzi A, Bagamian KH, Mills JN, Rollin PE, Zanto SN, et al. A temporal dilution effect: hantavirus infection in deer mice and the intermittent presence of voles in Montana. Oecologia. 2011;166(3):713–21. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1882-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Glass GE, Yates TL, Fine JB, Shields TM, Kendall JB, Hope AG, et al. Satellite imagery characterizes local animal reservoir populations of Sin Nombre virus in the southwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002;99(26):16817–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Luis AD, Douglass RJ, Mills JN, Bjørnstad ON. The effect of seasonality, density and climate on the population dynamics of Montana deer mice, important reservoir hosts for Sin Nombre hantavirus. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79(2):462–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01646.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Carver S, Mills JN, Parmenter CA, Parmenter RR, Richardson KS, Harris RL. Toward a mechanistic understanding of environmentally forced zoonotic disease emergence: Sin Nombre hantavirus. BioScience. 2015;65(7):651–66. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Dizney L, Dearing MD. Behavioural differences: a link between biodiversity and pathogen transmission. Anim Behav. 2016;111:341–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Gorosito IL, Douglass RJ. A damped precipitation-driven, bottom-up model for deer mouse population abundance in the northwestern United States. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(24):11113–23. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Parmenter RR, Glass GE. Hantavirus outbreaks in the American Southwest: propagation and retraction of rodent and virus diffusion waves from sky-island refugia. Int J Mod Phys B. 2022;36(07n08):2140052. [Google Scholar]
53.Glass GE. Forecasting outbreaks of hantaviral disease: future directions in geospatial modeling. Viruses. 2023;15(7):1461. doi: 10.3390/v15071461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Prist PR, Uriarte M, Fernandes K, Metzger JP. Climate change and sugarcane expansion increase Hantavirus infection risk. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):e0005705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Mendoza H, López-Pérez AM, Rubio AV, Barrón-Rodríguez JJ, Mazari-Hiriart M, Pontifes PA, et al. Association between anthropization and rodent reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens in Northwestern Mexico. PLoS One. 2024;19(2):e0298976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Laenen L, Vergote V, Calisher CH, Klempa B, Klingström J, Kuhn JH. Hantaviridae: Current Classification and Future Perspectives. Viruses. 2019;11(9):788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Hjelle B, Lee SW, Song W, Torrez-Martinez N, Song JW, Yanagihara R, et al. Molecular linkage of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome to the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus: genetic characterization of the M genome of New York virus. J Virol. 1995;69(12):8137–41. doi: 10.1128/JVI.69.12.8137-8141.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Ashford RW. What it takes to be a reservoir host. Belg J Zool. 1997;127(Supplement 1):85–90. [Google Scholar]
59.Haydon DT, Cleaveland S, Taylor LH, Laurenson MK. Identifying reservoirs of infection: a conceptual and practical challenge. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(12):1468–73. doi: 10.3201/eid0812.010317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Go YY, Balasuriya UBR, Lee C-K. Zoonotic encephalitides caused by arboviruses: transmission and epidemiology of alphaviruses and flaviviruses. Clin Exp Vaccine Res. 2014;3(1):58–77. doi: 10.7774/cevr.2014.3.1.58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Han BA, Schmidt JP, Bowden SE, Drake JM. Rodent reservoirs of future zoonotic diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(22):7039–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501598112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Kuno G, Mackenzie JS, Junglen S, Hubálek Z, Plyusnin A, Gubler DJ. Vertebrate Reservoirs of Arboviruses: Myth, Synonym of Amplifier, or Reality?. Viruses. 2017;9(7):185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Forbes KM, Sironen T, Plyusnin A. Hantavirus maintenance and transmission in reservoir host populations. Curr Opin Virol. 2018;28:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Salkeld D, Hopkins S, Hayman D. Reservoir hosts. In: Salkeld D, Hopkins S, Hayman D. Emerging Zoonotic and Wildlife Pathogens: Disease Ecology, Epidemiology, and Conservation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 2023. [Google Scholar]
65.Platt RNI, Amman BR, Keith MS, Thompson CW, Bradley RD. What is Peromyscus? Evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences suggests the need for a new classification. J Mammal. 2015;96(4):708–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Steppan SJ, Schenk JJ. Muroid rodent phylogenetics: 900-species tree reveals increasing diversification rates. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Sullivan KAM, Platt RN, Bradley RD, Ray DA. Whole mitochondrial genomes provide increased resolution and indicate paraphyly in deer mice. BMC Zool. 2017;2(1):11. [Google Scholar]
68.Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, et al. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(8):502–10. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Douglass RJ, Kuenzi AJ, Williams CY, Douglass SJ, Mills JN. Removing deer mice from buildings and the risk for human exposure to Sin Nombre virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9(3):390–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Torres-Perez F, Wilson L, Collinge SK, Harmon H, Ray C, Medina RA, et al. Sin Nombre virus infection in field workers, Colorado, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(2):308–10. doi: 10.3201/eid1602.090735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Núñez JJ, Fritz CL, Knust B, Buttke D, Enge B, Novak MG. Hantavirus infections among overnight visitors to Yosemite National Park, California, USA, 2012. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(3):386–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, Haddaway NR, Kecke S, Schiemann J. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):8. [Google Scholar]
73.Tableau version 23.2.9. 2023. 2024 June 21. https://www.tableau.com/ [Google Scholar]
74.Bergeri I, Whelan MG, Ware H, Subissi L, Nardone A, Lewis HC, et al. Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies. PLoS Med. 2022;19(11):e1004107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS Pathog. 2025 Jun 10;21(6):e1013125. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0

22 Jul 2024

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r002

Decision Letter 0

Jens Kuhn

18 Sep 2024

Dear Dr. Sterner,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A Systematic Review of the Distribution and Prevalence of Viruses Detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus Species Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. 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.

Based on especially Reviewer 3's comments, I'd strongly advise that the authors double-check their searches thoroughly using both "deer mouse", "deer mice", "deermouse" and "deer mice" in addition to "Peromyscus" to ensure both accurate literature citing and scoping. As a side note, in response to reviewers: HPS, not HCPS, is the official term for the disease as per the WHO ICD-11, so I would recommend leaving this; likewise, "deermouse/deermice" (no space) is the correct term for all animals classified in genus _Permomyscus_ per the zoological reference standard (Wilson & Reeder).

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,

Jens H. Kuhn

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Ronald Swanstrom

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Finkbeiner et al. conducted a systematic literature review to examine the distribution of viruses in North American deer mice, which has recently been proposed to be split into different species. The work reviewed the literature and conducted an analysis to identify the distribution of viruses, principally hantaviruses, arenaviruses and flaviviruses, amongst the proposed new peromyscus species. This work provides clarity of viral distributions and provides a compelling argument that the proposed P. sonoriensis is the principal reservoir host of Sin Nombre virus but that the virus can also be found in other species. Complicating this matter is the efforts by the ICTV to rework taxonomy of some of these viruses, such as the merging of SNV with NY1 hantavirus, which is hosted by P. leucopus. The manuscript is well written and the efforts of the authors are admirable.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Finkbeiner et al. describes a systematic review conducted by the authors, in which they extracted data from all relevant papers looking at natural viral infection of Peromyscus since 2000. Since deer mice are a critical reservoir for SNV and other viruses (not to mention pathogenic bacteria and parasites), this work is a timely description of what studies have been done to date surveying infection of these mice. The authors describe weighted seroprevalence mostly for SNV and describe the strong bias toward sampling in the western United States compared to other regions. They also do a nice job discussing the complexity of how to group together host species and viruses given the recent suggested taxonomic update of the Peromyscus genus, which as they note, means that 92% of described infections need to be reclassified. The manuscript nicely distills information from 46 studies and >60,000 observations into one well-written and well-presented package. I have some comments and questions regarding a few of the authors’ choices.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a review of Peromyscus-borne viral pathogens based on literature searches. The approach seems sound however details pertaining to virology seem weak and in many cases are misleading. Several references are missing which may suggest flaws in the search terms. For example, Goodfellow et al. 2021 (PMID 34549977) appears to be absent from the listed references, yet it describes similar concerns with the current knowledge of hantavirus / rodent reservoir theories. In my brief searches, this is the third paper that comes up if one searches for "Sin Nombre virus AND deer mice" .Further, there is no mention of long-term ecology / prevalence studies conducted across the USA post-1993 attempting to define indicators for predicting hantavirus spillover events.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: It would have been helpful if the authors had included other viruses hosted by peromyscus rodents, such as Modoc virus and El Moro Canyon virus (which is also found principally in western harvest mice). In the end, the viruses/reservoirs are somewhat "fuzzy" simply because different viruses can be found in multiple species.

The authors should clarify how the serology was done in these studies (e.g., "primary antigen" page 8). There is a huge difference between ELISA with nucleocapsid (highly conserved among New World hantaviruses) and Gn/Gc (more divergent), and assays such as focus reduction tests with cell culture/infectious virus. Antibodies to SNV nucleocapsid are cross reactive with Andes virus nucleocapsid, for example. This can have a profound impact on the analyses and conclusions raised by the authors. This should also be discussed in further detail in the Discussion on page 13 ("virus-specific antibody" tests).

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: - As stated above the description of virology in this paper needs to be improved. The basic description of virus detection methods lead to confusion and are potentially misleading. Hantaviruses are known to be serologically cross reactive and most studies conducted to date relay on basic ELSIA methodologies to determine the prevalence of hantaviruses in rodents. To determine it is SNV with certainty requires molecular techniques and often sequence analysis, which was frequently not done in earlier studies. Although serotyping ELISAs have been described, they are not commonly used therefore statements like "...studies are focused on SNV antibodies.." misleading. The studies are focused on antibodies reactive to hantaviruses. Further, the statement "Results on Powassan virus, Whitewater Arroyo Virus, Amapari virus and Mononhahela virus are inbformative in that they indicate the presence of these other hantaviruses within the P. maniculatus complex" is incorrect. Most of the viruses listed are not hantaviruses. This statement further highlights the incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of viruses presented in this manuscript.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Abstract. Although originally thought to be a pulmonary disease, SNV causes a cardiopulmonary disease. This is why clinical efforts are principally focused on the cardiovascular system. This should be added to the abstract (and why most of us refer to it has HCPS).

Also in the abstract, do not capitalize "hantavirus (cardio)pulmonary syndrome" because it is not a proper noun. Again on page 5.

Author Summary. What is meant by "locked"? Also, if referring to the families, then use Hantaviridae and Arenaviridae and italicize.

Change last sentence to "major knowledge gaps that remain."

Introduction. Use "deermouse" or "deer mouse" (e.g., second line of page 7), but not both. Do not capitalized "deermouse" nor "Tick-borne" because they are not a proper nouns. I also suggest the authors add "deer mouse" to the keyword list; otherwise, the risk is the paper will not be found by those who search for "deer mouse."

Change "mortality rate" to "case fatality rate." They are different terms.

Figure 3 is out of order. The figures should be in the order they are referenced in the text. Figure 3 should be the last figure.

Reviewer #2: I am wondering why the authors chose to specifically include “viruses detected in Peromyscus” in the title, rather than simply a scoping review on SNV? As it stands, the arenaviruses and Powassan make up such a minority of the data that this might have made more sense, with just a mention of the other viruses, which is basically how it is already.

In the results section starting with “other viruses were sampled less frequently…” it discusses 1 study with 353 observations for AMAV and WWAV. The mentioned of “arenavirus” tested for in only a single study, while then mentioning multiple studies later on looking at AMAV and WWAV is a bit confusing, even though I know they mean a broader Arenavirus positivity and not one that is species specific. To this end, in the last sentence of this paragraph it also says that there are multiple studies focusing on arenaviruses including WWAV and AMAV, but I think this adds to the confusion without clarifying the difference, because in the preceding paragraph is says there are only 2 studies looking at WWAV and AMAV. I would maybe make this distinction a bit more clear.

Minor comments:

Discussion; sentence starting with “results on Powassan virus,…” it says they are informative as the indicate the presence of these other hantaviruses, though these are not all hantaviruses. And perhaps a brief discussion about Monongahela virus and how it is not its own species as of the most recent taxonomic update might be warranted.

There is a section of the discussion where the authors discuss variability in seroprevalence and how this is likely due to inconsistencies in sampling across locations and timing. It may be worth a brief discussion on what is known about how rates of SNV prevalence change in deer mouse populations depending on season and how the timing of individuals studies might influence the data in this regard. In lieu of not including timing of sampling in individual studies as part of the wider analysis

Reviewer #3: - Authors include Eastern deermouse and North American deermouse in search terms but never simply deer mouse. I get zero results for North American deermouse but get 3,236 hits for deer mouse on Pubmed. Perhaps deer mouse should be included in the search criteria? Is it deermouse or deer mouse? I more commonly see it as deer mouse, yet the search terms used list "deermouse"

- In the introduction the authors should differentiate between studies demonstrating susceptibility (which I assume is the term the authors use for experimental infections) versus known to harbor which appears to be based on ecological studies. For example, they cite a study by "Griffin" in 2021 (which appears to be an incomplete reference) suggesting deer mice are susceptible to SARS-Cov-2 but as far as this reviewer is aware deer mice have not been implicated as natural reservoirs for this virus.

-I would encourage the authors to further analyze their datasets to highlight which studies conducted in-depth rodent identification techniques such as cytochrome sequencing to determine rodent species as opposed to those which simply used visual clues.

- Many critical references are missing which makes this reviewer wonder if the search terms used need to be expanded. To this point, there are several papers from studies conducted in Canada that seem to have been missed by the terms used.

**********

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:

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 on PLOS Biology: 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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments Peromyscus systematic review..docx

ppat.1013125.s010.docx^{(14.2KB, docx)}

PLoS Pathog. 2025 Jun 10;21(6):e1013125. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1

8 Jan 2025

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - PLoS Pathogens-Dec20.docx

ppat.1013125.s012.docx^{(13.1KB, docx)}

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r004

Decision Letter 1

Jens Kuhn

6 Feb 2025

PPATHOGENS-D-24-01530R1

A Systematic Review of the Distribution and Prevalence of Viruses Detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus Species Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Sterner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens'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 within 30 days Apr 07 2025 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 plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ronald Swanstrom

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Ronald Swanstrom

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Journal Requirements:

1) Please upload a copy of Figures 1-7 which you refer to in your text. Please note that the figures should be uploaded as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/figures

2) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a complete list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for the supplementary tables after the references list.

3) For maps included in the manuscript: Please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

4) All authors should have affiliations, and no affiliations should be included unless linked to an author. Please ensure that the affiliations of Nathan Upham and Beckett Sterner are provided in the title page. Please also ensure that the affiliation of Beckett Sterner is included in the online submission form.

5) As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following:

- A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses.

- For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion.

- If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed.

- A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study:

- Name of data extractors and date of data extraction

- Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review.

- All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses.

- If data or supporting information were obtained from another source (e.g. correspondence with the author of the original research article), please provide the source of data and dates on which the data/information were obtained by your research group.

- If applicable for your analysis, a table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome. Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome.

- An explanation of how missing data were handled.

This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal, and if these data are not provided your manuscript might be rejected.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the issues from the previous manuscript but have not addressed El Moro Canyon virus that has been detected in deer mice (see PMID 9025697). It is not clear that other hantaviruses might infect deer mice, thus the assertion that seropositive deer mice must be infected with SNV is not justified.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my comments and those of the other reviewers and editor

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Reviewer #1: There are no experiments; this is an analysis of the literature.

Reviewer #2: None.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: None.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed my main concerns in their revised submission. I disagree with the authors responses that the years ecological work conducted on SNV and other hantaviruses are out of scope for this work. I would prefer to see some further discussion on that topic since those studies represent a vast amount of knowledge that is in my opinion highly relevant to this topic.

**********

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

[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.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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 Pathog. 2025 Jun 10;21(6):e1013125. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2

8 Apr 2025

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-2ndRev - Final.pdf

ppat.1013125.s013.pdf^{(51.3KB, pdf)}

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r006

Decision Letter 2

Jens Kuhn

11 Apr 2025

Dear Dr. Sterner,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A Systematic Review of the Distribution and Prevalence of Viruses Detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus Species Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Jens H. Kuhn

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Ronald Swanstrom

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013125.r007

Acceptance letter

Jens Kuhn

Dear Dr. Sterner,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A Systematic Review of the Distribution and Prevalence of Viruses Detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus Species Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 PRISMA Checklist. Completed checklist for systematic reviews following the 2020 PRISMA Standard [77].

(DOCX)

ppat.1013125.s001.docx^{(267.9KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus S genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s002.pdf^{(115.9KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus M genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s003.pdf^{(118.3KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Phylogeny of the hantavirus L genome segment based on a maximum-likelihood alignment of hantavirus nucleotide sequences collected from Peromyscus maniculatus.

(PDF)

ppat.1013125.s004.pdf^{(106.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Summary of search queries and results from Scopus, PubMed, and PubMed Central databases.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s005.xlsx^{(20KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Numbered list of included and excluded studies from the systematic review.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s006.xlsx^{(54.1KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Summary of sampling locations, effort, seroprevalence, detection method, and target virus in each study included in the review.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s007.xlsx^{(66.3KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. Comprehensive table of all data extracted from the included studies.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s008.xlsx^{(569.3KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Intermediate results for calculating weighted prevalences at the county level in the U.S. and province level in Canada and Mexico.

Summary statistics of human HPS cases and rodent and virus sampling efforts.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013125.s009.xlsx^{(51.6KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments Peromyscus systematic review..docx

ppat.1013125.s010.docx^{(14.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - PLoS Pathogens-Dec20.docx

ppat.1013125.s012.docx^{(13.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-2ndRev - Final.pdf

ppat.1013125.s013.pdf^{(51.3KB, pdf)}

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.

[ppat.1013125.ref001] 1.Bedford NL, Hoekstra HE. Peromyscus mice as a model for studying natural variation. eLife. 2015;4:e06813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref002] 2.Peromyscus maniculatus. Mammal Diversity Database. https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1002307. 2024. 2024 June 14. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref003] 3.Mammal Diversity Database. Mammal Diversity Database. https://zenodo.org/records/10595931. 2024. 2024 June 14. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref004] 4.Burgin CJ, Colella JP, Kahn PL, Upham NS. How many species of mammals are there?. Journal of Mammalogy. 2018;99(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref005] 5.Shorter KR, Crossland JP, Webb D, Szalai G, Felder MR, Vrana PB. Peromyscus as a mammalian epigenetic model. Genet Res Int. 2012;2012:e179159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref006] 6.Vrana PB, Shorter KR, Szalai G, Felder MR, Crossland JP, Veres M, et al. Peromyscus (deer mice) as developmental models. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2014;3(3):211–30. doi: 10.1002/wdev.132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref007] 7.Milholland MT, Castro-Arellano I, Suzán G, Garcia-Peña GE, Lee TE Jr, Rohde RE, et al. Global Diversity and Distribution of Hantaviruses and Their Hosts. Ecohealth. 2018;15(1):163–208. doi: 10.1007/s10393-017-1305-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref008] 8.Guralnick R, Hantak MM, Li D, McLean BS. Body size trends in response to climate and urbanization in the widespread North American deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8882. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65866-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref009] 9.Boria RA, Blois JL. Phylogeography within the Peromyscus maniculatus species group: understanding past distribution of genetic diversity and areas of refugia in western North America. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2023;180:107701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref010] 10.Chapman OS, McLean BS. Seasonal and sex-specific changes in the gastrointestinal tracts of Peromyscus maniculatus. J Mammal. 2023;104(6):1364–76. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyad086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref011] 11.Chen RX, Gong HY, Wang X, Sun MH, Ji YF, Tan SM. Zoonotic Hantaviridae with Global Public Health Significance. Viruses. 2023;15(8):1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref012] 12.Nichol ST, Spiropoulou CF, Morzunov S, Rollin PE, Ksiazek TG, Feldmann H. Genetic identification of a hantavirus associated with an outbreak of acute respiratory illness. Science. 1993;262(5135):914–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref013] 13.Childs JE, Colby L, Krebs JW, Strine T, Feller M, Noah D. Surveillance and spatiotemporal associations of rabies in rodents and lagomorphs in the United States, 1985-1994. J Wildl Dis. 1997;33(1):20–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref014] 14.Ubelaker J, Rácz G. A checklist of parasites of Peromyscus maniculatus in North America. MANTER J Parasite Biodivers. 2022. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref015] 15.Postler T, Bradfute S, Calisher C, Klingström J, Laenen L, Maes P, et al. Rename all species in the family to comply with the ICTV-mandated binomial format (Bunyavirales: Hantaviridae). International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. 2021. https://ictv.global/ictv/proposals/2021.013M.Hantaviridae_sprename.zip [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref016] 16.Centers For Disease Control. Reported Cases of Hantavirus Disease. 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20240307003345/ https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/surveillance/index.html [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref017] 17.Warner BM, Dowhanik S, Audet J, Grolla A, Dick D, Strong JE. Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome in Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(12):3020–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref018] 18.MacNeil A, Ksiazek TG, Rollin PE. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, United States, 1993–2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(7):1195–201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref019] 19.Vigueras-Galván AL, López-Pérez AM, García-Peña GE, Rico-Chávez O, Sarmiento-Silva RE, Suzán G. Current Situation and Perspectives on Hantaviruses in Mexico. Viruses. 2019;11(7):642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref020] 20.Avšič-Županc T, Saksida A, Korva M. Hantavirus infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;:e6-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref021] 21.Kuhn JH, Schmaljohn CS. A Brief History of Bunyaviral Family Hantaviridae. Diseases. 2023;11(1):38. doi: 10.3390/diseases11010038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref022] 22.Mills JN, Amman BR, Glass GE. Ecology of hantaviruses and their hosts in North America. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10(6):563–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref023] 23.Mull N, Carlson CJ, Forbes KM, Becker DJ. Virus isolation data improve host predictions for New World rodent orthohantaviruses. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91(6):1290–302. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref024] 24.Dragoo JW, Lackey JA, Moore KE, Lessa EP, Cook JA, Yates TL. Phylogeography of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) provides a predictive framework for research on hantaviruses. J Gen Virol. 2006;87(Pt 7):1997–2003. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81576-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref025] 25.Bradley R, Lindsey L. Mitochondrial DNA sequence data indicate evidence for multiple species within Peromyscus maniculatus. Spec Publ Mus Tex Tech Univ. 2019;25. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref026] 26.Greenbaum IF, Honeycutt RL, Chirhart SE. Taxonomy and phylogenetics of the Peromyscus maniculatus species group. Spec Publ Mus Tex Tech Univ. 2019. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref027] 27.Griffin BD, Chan M, Tailor N, Mendoza EJ, Leung A, Warner BM, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in the North American deer mouse. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):3612. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23848-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref028] 28.Ebel GD. Update on Powassan virus: emergence of a North American tick-borne flavivirus. Annual Review of Entomology. 2010;55:95–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref029] 29.Reignier T, Oldenburg J, Flanagan ML, Hamilton GA, Martin VK, Cannon PM. Receptor use by the Whitewater Arroyo virus glycoprotein. Virology. 2008;371(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref030] 30.Upham NS, Poelen JH, Paul D, Groom QJ, Simmons NB, Vanhove MPM. Liberating host–virus knowledge from biological dark data. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(10):e746-50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref031] 31.Guala GF. The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref032] 32.Remsen D. The use and limits of scientific names in biological informatics. ZooKeys. 2016;550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref033] 33.Kuhn J, Bradfute S, Calisher C, Klempa B, Klingström J, Laenen L, et al. Reevaluate and reorganize family Hantaviridae (order Bunyavirales). 2023.035M. International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. 2023. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref034] 34.Biggs JR, Bennett KD, Torrez-Martinez N, Hjelle BL. Sin Nombre Virus Antibody Prevalence in Rodents of North-Central New Mexico. Southwest Nat. 2000;45(1):61–6. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref035] 35.Danforth ME, Messenger S, Buttke D, Weinburke M, Carroll G, Hacker G, et al. Long-Term Rodent Surveillance after Outbreak of Hantavirus Infection, Yosemite National Park, California, USA, 2012. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(3):560–7. doi: 10.3201/eid2603.191307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref036] 36.Childs JE, Ksiazek TG, Spiropoulou CF, Krebs JW, Morzunov S, Maupin GO, et al. Serologic and genetic identification of Peromyscus maniculatus as the primary rodent reservoir for a new hantavirus in the southwestern United States. J Infect Dis. 1994;169(6):1271–80. doi: 10.1093/infdis/169.6.1271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref037] 37.Rawlings JA, Torrez-Martinez N, Neill SU, Moore GM, Hicks BN, Pichuantes S, et al. Cocirculation of multiple hantaviruses in Texas, with characterization of the small (S) genome of a previously undescribed virus of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1996;55(6):672–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1996.55.672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref038] 38.Deardorff ER, Nofchissey RA, Cook JA, Hope AG, Tsvetkova A, Talbot SL. Powassan Virus in Mammals, Alaska and New Mexico, USA, and Russia, 2004–2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(12):2012–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref039] 39.Charrel RN, de Lamballerie X. Zoonotic aspects of arenavirus infections. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(3):213–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref040] 40.Pierson TC, Diamond MS. The continued threat of emerging flaviviruses. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5(6):796–812. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0714-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref041] 41.Lyubsky S, Gavrilovskaya I, Luft B, Mackow E. Histopathology of Peromyscus leucopus naturally infected with pathogenic NY-1 hantaviruses: pathologic markers of HPS viral infection in mice. Lab Invest. 1996;74(3):627–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref042] 42.Luong LT, Vigliotti BA, Campbell S, Comer JA, Mills JN, Hudson PJ. Dynamics of hantavirus infection in Peromyscus leucopus of central Pennsylvania. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11(11):1459–64. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2010.0255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref043] 43.Mlera L, Meade-White K, Saturday G, Scott D, Bloom ME. Modeling Powassan virus infection in Peromyscus leucopus, a natural host. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(1):e0005346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref044] 44.Calisher CH, Wagoner KD, Amman BR, Root JJ, Douglass RJ, Kuenzi AJ. Demographic factors associated with prevalence of antibody to Sin Nombre virus in deer mice in the western United States. J Wildl Dis. 2007;43(1):1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref045] 45.Previtali MA, Lehmer EM, Pearce-Duvet JMC, Jones JD, Clay CA, Wood BA, et al. Roles of human disturbance, precipitation, and a pathogen on the survival and reproductive probabilities of deer mice. Ecology. 2010;91(2):582–92. doi: 10.1890/08-2308.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref046] 46.Carver S, Kuenzi A, Bagamian KH, Mills JN, Rollin PE, Zanto SN, et al. A temporal dilution effect: hantavirus infection in deer mice and the intermittent presence of voles in Montana. Oecologia. 2011;166(3):713–21. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1882-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref047] 47.Glass GE, Yates TL, Fine JB, Shields TM, Kendall JB, Hope AG, et al. Satellite imagery characterizes local animal reservoir populations of Sin Nombre virus in the southwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002;99(26):16817–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref048] 48.Luis AD, Douglass RJ, Mills JN, Bjørnstad ON. The effect of seasonality, density and climate on the population dynamics of Montana deer mice, important reservoir hosts for Sin Nombre hantavirus. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79(2):462–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01646.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref049] 49.Carver S, Mills JN, Parmenter CA, Parmenter RR, Richardson KS, Harris RL. Toward a mechanistic understanding of environmentally forced zoonotic disease emergence: Sin Nombre hantavirus. BioScience. 2015;65(7):651–66. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref050] 50.Dizney L, Dearing MD. Behavioural differences: a link between biodiversity and pathogen transmission. Anim Behav. 2016;111:341–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref051] 51.Gorosito IL, Douglass RJ. A damped precipitation-driven, bottom-up model for deer mouse population abundance in the northwestern United States. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(24):11113–23. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref052] 52.Parmenter RR, Glass GE. Hantavirus outbreaks in the American Southwest: propagation and retraction of rodent and virus diffusion waves from sky-island refugia. Int J Mod Phys B. 2022;36(07n08):2140052. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref053] 53.Glass GE. Forecasting outbreaks of hantaviral disease: future directions in geospatial modeling. Viruses. 2023;15(7):1461. doi: 10.3390/v15071461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref054] 54.Prist PR, Uriarte M, Fernandes K, Metzger JP. Climate change and sugarcane expansion increase Hantavirus infection risk. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):e0005705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref055] 55.Mendoza H, López-Pérez AM, Rubio AV, Barrón-Rodríguez JJ, Mazari-Hiriart M, Pontifes PA, et al. Association between anthropization and rodent reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens in Northwestern Mexico. PLoS One. 2024;19(2):e0298976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref056] 56.Laenen L, Vergote V, Calisher CH, Klempa B, Klingström J, Kuhn JH. Hantaviridae: Current Classification and Future Perspectives. Viruses. 2019;11(9):788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref057] 57.Hjelle B, Lee SW, Song W, Torrez-Martinez N, Song JW, Yanagihara R, et al. Molecular linkage of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome to the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus: genetic characterization of the M genome of New York virus. J Virol. 1995;69(12):8137–41. doi: 10.1128/JVI.69.12.8137-8141.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref058] 58.Ashford RW. What it takes to be a reservoir host. Belg J Zool. 1997;127(Supplement 1):85–90. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref059] 59.Haydon DT, Cleaveland S, Taylor LH, Laurenson MK. Identifying reservoirs of infection: a conceptual and practical challenge. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(12):1468–73. doi: 10.3201/eid0812.010317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref060] 60.Go YY, Balasuriya UBR, Lee C-K. Zoonotic encephalitides caused by arboviruses: transmission and epidemiology of alphaviruses and flaviviruses. Clin Exp Vaccine Res. 2014;3(1):58–77. doi: 10.7774/cevr.2014.3.1.58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref061] 61.Han BA, Schmidt JP, Bowden SE, Drake JM. Rodent reservoirs of future zoonotic diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(22):7039–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501598112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref062] 62.Kuno G, Mackenzie JS, Junglen S, Hubálek Z, Plyusnin A, Gubler DJ. Vertebrate Reservoirs of Arboviruses: Myth, Synonym of Amplifier, or Reality?. Viruses. 2017;9(7):185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref063] 63.Forbes KM, Sironen T, Plyusnin A. Hantavirus maintenance and transmission in reservoir host populations. Curr Opin Virol. 2018;28:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref064] 64.Salkeld D, Hopkins S, Hayman D. Reservoir hosts. In: Salkeld D, Hopkins S, Hayman D. Emerging Zoonotic and Wildlife Pathogens: Disease Ecology, Epidemiology, and Conservation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 2023. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref065] 65.Platt RNI, Amman BR, Keith MS, Thompson CW, Bradley RD. What is Peromyscus? Evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences suggests the need for a new classification. J Mammal. 2015;96(4):708–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref066] 66.Steppan SJ, Schenk JJ. Muroid rodent phylogenetics: 900-species tree reveals increasing diversification rates. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref067] 67.Sullivan KAM, Platt RN, Bradley RD, Ray DA. Whole mitochondrial genomes provide increased resolution and indicate paraphyly in deer mice. BMC Zool. 2017;2(1):11. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref068] 68.Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, et al. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(8):502–10. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref069] 69.Douglass RJ, Kuenzi AJ, Williams CY, Douglass SJ, Mills JN. Removing deer mice from buildings and the risk for human exposure to Sin Nombre virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9(3):390–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref070] 70.Torres-Perez F, Wilson L, Collinge SK, Harmon H, Ray C, Medina RA, et al. Sin Nombre virus infection in field workers, Colorado, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(2):308–10. doi: 10.3201/eid1602.090735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref071] 71.Núñez JJ, Fritz CL, Knust B, Buttke D, Enge B, Novak MG. Hantavirus infections among overnight visitors to Yosemite National Park, California, USA, 2012. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(3):386–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref072] 72.Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, Haddaway NR, Kecke S, Schiemann J. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):8. [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref073] 73.Tableau version 23.2.9. 2023. 2024 June 21. https://www.tableau.com/ [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref074] 74.Bergeri I, Whelan MG, Ware H, Subissi L, Nardone A, Lewis HC, et al. Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies. PLoS Med. 2022;19(11):e1004107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref075] 75.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref076] 76.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1013125.ref077] 77.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

A systematic review of the distribution and prevalence of viruses detected in the Peromyscus maniculatus species complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae)

Ally Finkbeiner

Ahmad Khatib

Nathan Upham

Beckett Sterner

Roles

Abstract

Author summary:

1. Introduction

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram. The flow diagram shows the number of research studies retrieved, included, and excluded in the systematic review process according to the 2020 PRISMA Standard. The template diagram is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Fig 2. Map of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome human cases. Cases shown were reported from 1993 to 2021 in the U.S. and to 2020 in Canada [16,17]. Base map layer from OpenStreetMap under the Open Database License.

2. Results

Fig 5. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome cases versus number of studies by state. Comparison of field studies published since 2000 in which testing for viruses in P. maniculatus was conducted against the total number of reported human hantavirus cases across states and Canadian provinces.

Fig 7. Effect of taxonomic split on virus data. Seroprevalence compared to host ranges in the P. maniculatus species complex. Base map layer from OpenStreetMap under the Open Database License.

3. Discussion

4. Materials and methods

Table 1. Search terms used in conducting the systematic review of existing literature across three separate databases. Common names as well as scientific names for species within the P. maniculatus species complex were included.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 0

Jens Kuhn

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

Jens Kuhn

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 2

Jens Kuhn

Roles

Acceptance letter

Jens Kuhn

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases