Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 5;21(6):e0344889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344889

Multistate animal-contact-related nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica outbreaks in the United States, 2009–2022: Network and machine learning analyses of exposure sources, settings, and serovars

Hammad Ur Rehman Bajwa 1, Suman Bhowmick 1, Csaba Varga 1,2,*
Editor: Yung-Fu Chang3
PMCID: PMC13240899  PMID: 42247430

Abstract

Background

Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica (NTS) is a major public‑health threat in the United States of America (U.S.). Evaluating associations between serovars, exposure sources, and settings in multistate outbreaks can reveal the drivers of NTS transmission and guide prioritization of targeted prevention and control strategies.

Methods

We analyzed multistate animal‑contact-related NTS outbreaks reported to the CDC National Outbreak Reporting System during 2009–2022. We calculated incidence rates (IR) per 10 million population-years (MPY) and assessed temporal trends in IRs using Joinpoint regression. We constructed interstate co-occurrence networks linking serovars, exposure sources, settings, and states, and applied a random forest classifier to identify variables most useful for distinguishing outbreak profiles.

Results

We identified 177 multistate outbreaks (0.06 per 10 MPY) involving 40 serovars. Incidence significantly declined from 2009 to 2013 and remained stable thereafter. Random forest rankings identified birds and reptiles as the most influential exposure sources and agricultural feed stores and residential homes as the most influential exposure settings in distinguishing outbreak profiles. Co-occurrence network analysis revealed two major communities. The first included outbreaks involving serovars Enteritidis and Infantis, bird exposure source, and agricultural feed stores or farms as exposure settings, with co-occurrence hubs across the Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions. The second community involved outbreaks linked with reptiles and mammals as exposure sources, residential homes and farms as exposure settings, and serovars Hadar, Typhimurium, and Braenderup, which were co-occurring in the Western and Southern regions.

Conclusions

Multistate animal-contact NTS outbreaks clustered into distinct serovar-exposure, source, setting, and region patterns, suggesting different NTS outbreak transmission pathways. The persistence of NTS serovars across states, diverse animal-contact sources, and exposure settings underscores the ongoing zoonotic transmission risk at the human-animal and environmental interfaces. A region-specific One Health approach to prevent and control NTS outbreaks is suggested to reduce the health burden.

Introduction

Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica (NTS) is an important zoonotic pathogen and a leading global public‑health concern [1]. Globally, NTS causes over 95 million enteric illnesses, with more than 500,000 invasive infections, leading to high fatality rates [2]. It also poses an economic burden, contributing to millions of disability-adjusted life years and to substantial healthcare costs worldwide [3]. Most NTS infections are self-limiting; however, severe invasive disease can occur [4]. The NTS bacteria are adaptable to various hosts, with NTS serovars such as Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Heidelberg, and Infantis being common causes of human enteric disease, including in the U.S. [5]. Worldwide, NTS causes millions of illnesses annually, with young children, older adults, and immunocompromised persons at elevated risk of severe disease [6]. Although foodborne transmission accounts for a large proportion of NTS infections, illnesses associated with direct animal contact also contribute to the disease burden [7,8]. Humans can be infected by contact with infected animals or their contaminated environment at farms, live‑animal markets, petting zoos, and households with companion or exotic animals, requiring integrated One Health prevention strategies [9].

Outbreaks linked to animal contact are prone to cross‑jurisdictional spread as modern animal production and distribution networks regularly move live animals across state lines, so single contamination points, such as NTS-infected day‑old chicks from a hatchery supplying multiple states, a common breeder distributing reptiles or other pet animals to pet stores and private owners, can cause geographically dispersed outbreaks [10]. These distribution‑driven pathways enable multistate dissemination and need a coordinated national surveillance, interstate response, and targeted control measures to identify sources and interrupt transmission [11]. Multistate NTS outbreaks linked to poultry, reptiles, and mammalian species are characterized by prolonged exposure windows and diffuse transmission pathways, which complicate case finding, source attribution, and timely intervention [11,12]. Although these animal contact-related events do not represent the majority of reported outbreaks, surveillance analyses show they account for a disproportionate share of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths, underscoring their public‑health impact and the need for strengthened, coordinated surveillance and control efforts [13].

In the US, the NTS multistate animal contact-related outbreaks have been linked to specific animal contact sources, including poultry [14], reptiles (turtles and bearded dragons) [15], and exotic pets [16]. The recurrent multistate outbreaks that are associated with live poultry demonstrate how lapses in biosecurity in mail-order hatcheries, shipping practices, and farm distribution systems enable the dissemination of pathogens across the country, and call for upstream interventions and strengthened trace‑back capacity [11,12].

Reptile‑associated multistate NTS outbreaks have persisted over the past decade, driven in part by illegal trade and sale of prohibited reptile species despite federal restrictions. Ongoing illicit distribution, via informal channels, unregulated online marketplaces, and noncompliant retailers, facilitates cross‑state dissemination of infected animals, complicates trace‑back investigations, and sustains transmission, highlighting the need for strengthened enforcement, targeted public education, and upstream interventions at points of supply [16]. Although less frequent than poultry or reptile-associated outbreaks, multistate NTS outbreaks have been associated with exotic pets and wild birds [16,17]. The diversity of animal reservoirs for NTS complicates surveillance, source attribution, and control; however, it creates intervention opportunities for public‑health authorities [18].

Furthermore, animal contact-related NTS outbreaks are not only characterized by exposure pathways but also by serovar heterogeneity [13]. There are serovars such as Typhimurium [16], Enteritidis [17], and Infantis [19] that are frequently reported in single- and multistate NTS outbreaks.

Despite recognized NTS diversity, most multistate outbreak surveillance studies focus on individual serovars, sources, and settings, and do not explain patterns across common and rare serovars. Studies that have focused on genetic evaluation of NTS serovars and they have reported that understanding the transmission dynamics of outbreaks and their source attribution is important [19,20]. No previous study explored long-term, NTS serovar-level animal contact-related multistate outbreaks in the US, and the relationship between serovars and animal contact sources remains unclear. Previous epidemiological studies focused on individual serovars or specific exposure sources, limiting the full scope of NTS transmission dynamics across the U.S. [16,21,22]. In multistate outbreaks, interconnected events might involve shared distribution systems, supply chains, and occupational exposures [21], and an integrated analytical approach is needed to quantify NTS burden and identify factors that sustain its endemicity across various reservoirs and regions.

We hypothesized that the epidemiology of animal‑contact-related multistate NTS outbreaks varies by serovar, exposure source, and setting, and is influenced by interstate transmission pathways. To test this hypothesis, we: 1) quantified the burden of animal‑contact–associated multistate NTS outbreaks in the United States (2009–2022); 2) assessed temporal changes in outbreak incidence rates using trend analyses; 3) evaluated the relative importance of geographic location, exposure source, and setting in distinguishing outbreak profiles using a random forest classifier; and 4) mapped and analyzed co‑occurrence patterns among serovars, states, exposure sources, and settings using network analysis.

Materials and methods

Data source, study design, and setting

The National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) is a voluntary disease surveillance system managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that collects reports on enteric disease outbreaks, including those transmitted through animal contact [23,24]. The system is used by local health departments, state-level health authorities, and the CDC to report and track outbreaks [24]. An outbreak is defined as the occurrence of more cases than expected within a period, a specific location, and a target population [25]. Multistate (more than 2 states) NTS outbreak investigations are coordinated and reported to NORS by CDC staff, while single-state outbreaks are investigated and reported to NORS by single jurisdictions [26].

The animal contact-related NTS outbreak data were obtained from the CDC through a dataset request [27]. The dataset included all animal-contact-related NTS outbreaks reported in NORS from 2009 to 2022. The data included details on NTS outbreak occurrence dates, locations (States), animal contact exposure sources, and settings, available in NORS as of August 2024. This retrospective observational study analyzes human NTS animal contact-related multistate outbreaks. It includes all outbreaks with confirmed or suspected status, along with data on serovars, exposure states, animal contact exposure sources, and settings. Outbreaks with “not available” or “other” categories for serovars, exposure sources, and settings were treated as distinct categories for further analysis.

Population data for the study period were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau [28]. The state administrative boundary shapefile was obtained from the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) /Line database from the U.S. Census Bureau [29].

Data management

The dataset was assessed for completeness, consistency, and accuracy. Each outbreak had a unique ID (CDCID), which was used to detect duplicate or incomplete records. In multistate outbreaks, each outbreak has a distinct CDCID, and that is shared across all participating states. The CDCID was used to verify outbreak grouping and aggregation of multistate outbreaks. The raw dataset consisted of multiple spreadsheets, each representing specific information (i.e., mode of transmission, etiology, geographical information, case counts, exposure sources, and settings). The spreadsheets were processed and merged based on their CDCID using R packages, including readxl [30], writexl [31], dp1yr [32], and tidyr [33]. The animal contact exposure sources were categorized using the CDC’s categorization scheme to harmonize exposures [34]. The categorical variables, including serovars, states, exposure sources, and settings, were standardized and coded in structured formats, including binary matrices.

Assessing NTS outbreak incidence rates

The R software (Version 4.5.2) in the RStudio Platform (Version 2026.04.0; 2009–2026 Posit Software, PBC) was used for all statistical analyses [35].

The national multistate outbreak incidence rates (IRs) per 10‑million person‑years (10 MPY) for 2009–2022 were calculated, as

IR =NP*x 10,000,000

N = Total number of multistate outbreaks in a year

P* = Sum of populations of all states involved (N times)

N = number of times the state appeared in the multistate outbreak in that year.

Table 1 summarizes the explanatory variables (features) used in the analysis, including their description, type, category, and the specific analysis in which they were applied.

Table 1. Summary of variables used for the analysis of Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreaks across the US, 2009–2022.

Variable Description Type Category Analysis
Year Outbreak occurrence time Numeric 2009–2022 Outbreak IRs; Joinpoint Regression Analysis,
States Geographical locations of outbreak occurrence Categorical 48 states and the District of Colombia Predictors: Random Forest and Network Analysis
State Indicators Binary representatives of states Binary 0 = absent
1 = present
Predictors: Random Forest and Network Analysis
Serovars Salmonella enterica serovars Categorical 40 serovars Outbreak IRs and Network Analysis
Serovars Indicators Binary representatives of serovars Binary 0 = absent
1 = present
Network Analysis
Animal contact exposure sources Animal contact reservoirs (e.g., birds, mammals, and reptiles) Categorical Animal contact exposure source categories Random Forest and Network Analysis
Animal contact exposure source indicators Binary representatives of exposure sources Binary 0 = absent
1 = present
Random Forest and Network Analysis
Animal contact exposure settings Animal contact exposure sources (e.g., feed stores, educational settings, farm/dairy/agricultural settings) Categorical Animal contact exposure settings Random Forest and Network Analysis
Animal contact exposure settings indicators Binary representatives of exposure settings Binary 0 = absent
1 = present
Random Forest and Network Analysis
Outbreak Incidence rates (IRs) Annual/Mean Outbreak IRs Continuous Outcome: Joinpoint Regression Analysis
Co-occurrence network (edges) Co-occurrence among variables in a multistate outbreak Weighted Frequency of Occurrence (size) Network Analysis
Co-occurrence network (Nodes) Serovars, states, exposure sources, and settings Categorical All variables Network Analysis

Temporal trend analysis using the Joinpoint regression method

Using the Joinpoint regression (JPR) analysis software (Version 5.4.0.0, 2025, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Maryland, USA), national trends in IRs of NTS multistate outbreaks across the US from 2009 to 2022 were examined [36]. Joinpoint analysis is a statistical approach used to identify points (joinpoints) where the trend in a dataset changes direction [36]. The temporal trends were assessed with Annual Percent Change (APC) to quantify the average yearly percent change within each Joinpoint-defined segment. APC was calculated from log-linear regression models as:

APC=(eβ−1)×100

Here β represents the slope of the fitted model. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) was used to summarize overall trends across the full study period.

The results of the JPR models were illustrated in graphs.

Random Forest analysis of multi-state outbreak data

We analyzed the binary dataset of human NTS multistate outbreaks from 2009 to 2022 using the Random Forest (RF) modeling approach. The RF method is a flexible, non-parametric ensemble learning technique that can perform well with high-dimensional datasets, which contain correlated and binary predictors, as our surveillance dataset carries the same characteristics. The RF method can also model complex, non-linear relationships among the higher-dimensional model variables, and it can also include higher-order interactions without requiring explicit specifications. In addition, RF also incorporates internally validated performance estimates through out-of-bag (OOB) error and can generate interpretable variable importance measures, which were central to our objective of identifying the key driving factors distinguishing cluster membership into the model [37]. The RF model is less sensitive to multicollinearity and overfitting than traditional regression-based approaches, and is suitable for exploratory analyses of complex multistate outbreak data with many potentially correlated indicators. Moreover, we outline our classification methodology and explore the relationships among key predictors. The RF classifier [38] was applied to a binary predictor matrix capturing features of multistate NTS outbreaks, including state indicators, exposure sources, and exposure settings. We removed variables with no variability before our analysis, and no additional feature selection or dimensionality reduction techniques were applied before RF model fitting. We performed unsupervised hierarchical clustering on the binary matrix using Jaccard dissimilarity and Ward’s linkage, and then considered the resulting dendrogram, which was cut into four clusters [39]. We treated the cluster membership as a 4-level categorical outcome in an RF model [40]. The outcome variable in the RF model was the cluster membership of multistate NTS outbreaks, categorized into four distinct groups based on similarities in their predictors (Table 1). In our model exploration, we included all remaining surveillance variables as predictors, and the variable importance was summarized using mean decrease in accuracy and mean decrease in Gini coefficient. Collectively, the above-mentioned steps involved identifying clusters through unsupervised methods, followed by the application of an RF classifier to determine the variables that distinguish cluster membership of the surveillance data (Table 1).

Additionally, RF constructs multiple decision trees using bootstrap samples of the data and random subsets of predictors at each split, with final classification determined by majority vote across trees [38]. Model performance and predictor relevance were evaluated using standard random-forest importance metrics: mean decrease in Gini (reflecting each variable’s contribution to node purity across trees) and permutation-based mean decrease in accuracy (quantifying the loss in classification accuracy after the random permutation of each predictor). We conducted all analyses in R using the following packages: readxl [30], tidyverse [41], dplyr [32], tidyr [33], randomForest [38], vegan [42], uwot [43], ggplot2 [44], and pheatmap [45].

Network analysis of multi-state outbreak data

The co-occurrence network approach was used to characterize relationships (co-occurrences) among NTS serovars, animal-contact exposure sources, settings, and States in multistate outbreaks [46]. This approach enables the identification of co-occurrence patterns and clustering structures across outbreak features. In our study, an undirected network was developed because the outbreak surveillance data showed shared participation in the same outbreak, and no directional transmission pathways could be established. To display the frequency of co-occurrence between categorical variables, a weighted network structure was used to allow for more recurrent relationships within the network [47].

We constructed a weighted, undirected outbreak co-occurrence network [48] where nodes represented U.S. states, exposure sources (e.g., birds, reptiles), exposure settings (e.g., agricultural feed stores, daycare centers), and serovars (Table 1). Edges represented shared participation in the same multistate outbreak, with edge weights corresponding to the number of outbreaks involving each pair of nodes. For the network analysis, only the 48 contiguous U.S. states plus the District of Columbia were included due to spatial analysis requirements, as the inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii would have introduced geographic distortions in the spatial relationships between states. The U.S. state boundary shapefiles were integrated as polygon layers to provide geographic context for visualizing the spatial co-occurrence network. We further described this network as weighted, where edge weights represented the magnitude of co-occurrence between node pairs, thus allowing stronger and weaker associations to be distinguished and visually represented. Network metrics, including degree, betweenness, clustering coefficient, and closeness, were calculated to characterize state-level connectivity. Louvain community detection was applied to identify clusters of related states, serovars, exposure sources, and settings. The R packages that were used to explore co-occurrence network patterns were igraph [46], ggraph [49], ggplot2 [44], and networkD3 [48].

Results

Assessing NTS outbreak incidence rates

A total of 177 NTS multistate outbreaks were reported in the US from 2009 to 2022, with a mean outbreak IR of 0.06 per 10 MPY. The highest outbreak IR was reported in 2009 (0.10 per 10 MPY) and 2018 (0.08 per 10MPY), and the lowest in 2013 (0.05 per 10 MPY). The highest number of states (52) involved in multistate outbreaks occurred in 2022, while the lowest (44) occurred in 2010. Additionally, 2022 also saw the highest number of state mentions (341) (S1 Table).

Temporal trend analysis using the Joinpoint regression method

The Joinpoint regression analysis was performed at the national level to explore NTS temporal trends from 2009 to 2022 (Fig 1 and S2 Table). The Joinpoint Regression analysis presents the Annual Percent Change in NTS outbreak trends from 2009 to 2022. The final selected model with a single Joinpoint in 2013, distinguished two trend periods, a steep and significant decline from 2009 to 2013, with an APC of −10.4%, 95% CI: −23.6–4.2, and p-value = 0.001, and a non-significant decreasing trend in later years from 2013 to 2022 (APC = −0.3%, 95% CI: −2.4–6.8, p-value = 0.98). (Fig 1 and S2 Table).

Fig 1. Joinpoint regression analysis of NTS animal contact-related multistate outbreaks across the US from 2009-2022.

Fig 1

Random Forest analysis of NTS outbreak data

Within the Random Forest framework, the U.S. States with the highest importance scores, indicating their strong and consistent contributions to distinguishing the outcome variable (cluster membership of multistate NTS outbreaks, categorized into four distinct groups based on similarities in their predictors), included Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Michigan, Texas, Kentucky, Alabama, Illinois, and Minnesota (Fig 2 and S3 Table). These states, with the highest importance scores, were more likely to be represented in the four multistate NTS outbreak clusters, as their characteristics significantly influenced cluster membership (Fig 2).

Fig 2. State‑level variable importance for nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal‑contact multistate outbreaks from random forest classification.

Fig 2

A. Mean decrease in Gini impurity; B. Mean decrease in accuracy. The plots show the relative contribution of each U.S. state to the classifier’s ability to distinguish outbreak profiles, with higher values indicating greater importance. States (abbreviations): NE‑Nebraska; OH‑Ohio; IN‑Indiana; MN‑Minnesota; VT‑Vermont; ID‑Idaho; IL‑Illinois; OR‑Oregon; MI‑Michigan; MO‑Missouri; AL‑Alabama; UT‑Utah; PA‑Pennsylvania; KY‑Kentucky; CO‑Colorado; OK‑Oklahoma; TX‑Texas; VA‑Virginia; MA‑Massachusetts; WI‑Wisconsin; GA‑Georgia; MD‑Maryland; MT‑Montana; WA‑Washington; CT‑Connecticut; TN‑Tennessee; ME‑Maine; LA‑Louisiana; KS‑Kansas; AZ‑Arizona; AR‑Arkansas; FL‑Florida; NV‑Nevada; MS‑Mississippi; DE‑Delaware; HI‑Hawaii; AK‑Alaska.

Birds and reptiles as the most influential animal-contact exposure sources, and agricultural feed stores and residential homes as the most influential exposure settings, were identified by the Random Forest model, based on variable importance ranking, suggesting that they all played an important role in defining the four multistate NTS outbreak clusters (outcome variable) (Fig 3 and S3 Table).

Fig 3. Variable importance of exposure sources and settings in the random forest model for nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal‑contact multistate outbreaks.

Fig 3

A. Exposure sources – Mean decrease in Gini; B. Exposure sources – Mean decrease in accuracy; C. Exposure settings – Mean decrease in Gini; D. Exposure settings – Mean decrease in accuracy. Abbreviations: BRD = Birds; MAM = Mammals; RPT = Reptiles; AFS = Agricultural feed stores; RSH = Residential settings; FAR = Farm/dairy/agricultural settings. Variable‑importance rankings from random‑forest classification of multistate, animal‑contact NTS outbreaks. Panels A and B show the importance of exposure sources (mean decrease in Gini and permutation mean decrease in accuracy, respectively); panels C and D show the importance of exposure settings. Higher values indicate greater contribution to the model’s ability to distinguish outbreak profiles. Birds and reptiles were the top source predictors, while agricultural feed stores and residential settings were the top setting predictors.

Network analysis of NTS outbreak data

A spatially explicit co-occurrence network was constructed for multistate outbreaks, integrating U.S. states, NTS serovars, animal exposure sources (Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, NA, Others), and settings (Agricultural feed stores, farms, residential settings, daycare centers, educational institutions, and others) (Fig 4). The centroids of U.S. states were used as one of the nodes and also as the spatial reference to aid in visualizing patterns of co-occurrence across different outbreak characteristics. Edges represented shared participation of nodes in the same outbreak (co-occurrence), with edge weights equal to the number of outbreaks in which each pair of nodes contributed. Several network metrics were calculated, including degree, which is the number of connections each node has, strength which is the frequency of shared outbreaks, betweenness, which represents the number of times a node is on the shortest path between two nodes, closeness, which determines how close the node is to all other nodes in the network, clustering coefficient, which is a measurement of the local connectivity, and Louvain communities, which represents a group of densely connected nodes.

Fig 4. State-level outbreak co-occurrence network of multistate nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica outbreaks in the United States.

Fig 4

States: AL-Alabama, AZ-Arizona, AR-Arkansas, CA-California, CO-Colorado, CT-Connecticut, DC-District of Colombia, DE-Delaware, FL-Florida, GA-Georgia, ID-Idaho, IL-Illinois, IN-Indiana, IA-Iowa, KS-Kansas, KY-Kentucky, LA-Louisiana, ME-Maine, MD-Maryland, MA-Massachusetts, MI-Michigan, MN-Minnesota, MS-Mississippi, MO-Missouri, MT-Montana, NE-Nebraska, NV-Nevada, NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey, NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, OH-Ohio, OK-Oklahoma, OR-Oregon, PA-Pennsylvania, RI-Rhode Island, SC-South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, TN-Tennessee, TX-Texas, UT-Utah, VT-Vermont, VA-Virginia, WA-Washington, WV-West Virginia, WI-Wisconsin, WY-Wyoming. Animal Sources: BRD-Birds, RPT-Reptiles, MAM-Mammals. Exposure settings: OTH-Others, AFS-Agricultural feed stores, RSH-Residential settings, FAR-Farm/dairy/agricultural settings, DAY-Child daycare/preschool, SCH-School/college/university, HOS-Hospital, VET-Veterinary clinic, FRG-Fairground.

The community detection identified two dominant Louvain communities with non-zero network metrics (Table 2) and 29 smaller communities, each consisting of a single node, all of which had no network metrics (S4 Table).

Table 2. Network metrics for nodes in the multistate outbreak co-occurrence network of nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal-contact related outbreaks in the United States.

Node Label Type Degree Strength Betweenness Closeness Clustering Community
BRD Birds Source 59 3733 11.08 0.33 0.77 1
SJHB Johannesburg Serovar 14 22 45.04 0.40 0.9 1
SINF Infantis Serovar 43 828 0.46 0.30 0.97 1
SEN Enteritidis Serovar 43 1019 0 0.24 0.98 1
SALT Altona Serovar 21 85 3.42 0.27 1 1
SMBK Mbandaka Serovar 38 171 9.89 0.38 1 1
SMUE2 Muenster Serovar 25 49 90.46 0.43 1 1
SAGB Agbeni Serovar 25 35 53.19 0.46 1 1
AFS Agricultural feed stores Setting 52 1237 25.30 0.32 0.89 1
FAR Dairy/farm/agricultural settings Setting 40 125 101.66 0.39 0.97 1
SCH School/college/university (educational settings) Setting 23 46 1.21 0.33 1 1
DAY Child daycares/preschools Setting 5 5 26.94 0.37 1 1
VA Virginia State 67 3465 20.29 0.42 0.72 1
PA Pennsylvania State 66 3085 10.90 0.43 0.74 1
OH Ohio State 65 3157 17.19 0.43 0.75 1
KY Kentucky State 64 2800 27.80 0.44 0.75 1
GA Georgia State 65 2689 61.76 0.46 0.75 1
IN Indiana State 65 2669 19.39 0.45 0.76 1
MI Michigan State 65 2703 41.00 0.45 0.76 1
TN Tennessee State 64 3174 10.27 0.42 0.77 1
IL Illinois State 64 3150 16.95 0.43 0.77 1
KS Kansas State 64 2265 75.45 0.47 0.77 1
MA Massachusetts State 62 2655 21.88 0.43 0.79 1
MD Maryland State 61 2421 14.55 0.42 0.8 1
ME Maine State 59 1996 29.02 0.40 0.81 1
VT Vermont State 60 2034 14.03 0.43 0.81 1
LA Louisiana State 59 2010 32.95 0.45 0.82 1
AR Arkansas State 58 2343 10.83 0.41 0.83 1
MS Mississippi State 57 1882 12.55 0.41 0.84 1
DE Delaware State 54 901 53.90 0.39 0.87 1
CT Connecticut State 55 1901 2.81 0.40 0.87 1
RPT Reptiles Source 53 480 71.72 0.41 0.84 2
MAM Mammals Source 37 96 146.51 0.42 0.98 2
AMP Amphibians Source 33 33 279.91 0.56 1 2
SMUE Muenchen Serovar 36 130 10.06 0.39 0.98 2
SHDR Hadar Serovar 42 551 0.14 0.29 0.99 2
STY Typhimurium Serovar 43 379 0 0.30 0.99 2
SBRP Braenderup Serovar 41 268 0.02 0.31 1 2
SBRT Berta Serovar 4 4 43.59 0.35 1 2
SPMN Pomona Serovar 32 99 17.67 0.39 1 2
SMTV Montevideo Serovar 35 122 23.50 0.39 1 2
SNWP Newport Serovar 36 100 24.20 0.40 1 2
SIND Indiana Serovar 30 115 35.48 0.40 1 2
STM I 4,[5],12:i:- Serovar 37 126 31.61 0.41 1 2
STHM Thompson Serovar 24 52 77.48 0.41 1 2
SSDG Sandiego Serovar 21 34 78.26 0.42 1 2
SPON Poona Serovar 29 70 96.77 0.43 1 2
SUGA Uganda Serovar 22 22 161.01 0.48 1 2
SCTH Cotham Serovar 28 28 241.31 0.52 1 2
STYC Typhimurium var Copenhagen Serovar 33 33 279.91 0.56 1 2
RSH Residential settings Setting 51 326 53.62 0.42 0.91 2
WA Washington State 66 2864 74.73 0.45 0.74 2
TX Texas State 65 3101 19.38 0.44 0.76 2
CA California State 64 3301 8.58 0.41 0.77 2
OK Oklahoma State 62 1944 30.35 0.43 0.79 2
MO Missouri State 62 2822 4.84 0.42 0.8 2
WI Wisconsin State 62 2643 15.46 0.44 0.8 2
MN Minnesota State 61 2710 25.25 0.44 0.8 2
UT Utah State 61 2186 64.38 0.46 0.8 2
NE Nebraska State 61 2352 9.30 0.43 0.81 2
CO Colorado State 61 2331 19.92 0.44 0.81 2
NV Nevada State 60 1577 26.09 0.44 0.81 2
FL Florida State 59 2133 5.70 0.42 0.82 2
OR Oregon State 60 2163 23.77 0.44 0.82 2
AZ Arizona State 60 2207 38.55 0.44 0.82 2
IA Iowa State 58 2385 0.12 0.29 0.83 2
ID Idaho State 55 1724 42.22 0.44 0.88 2
MT Montana State 54 1645 34.59 0.43 0.89 2
WY Wyoming State 53 1440 23.96 0.39 0.92 2

Two main Louvain communities were identified. Community 1 consisted of nodes representing states, NTS serovars, exposure sources, and settings. It included the following states: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Vermont, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Delaware, and Connecticut. The serovars in Community 1 were Johannesburg, Infantis, Enteritidis, Altona, Mbandaka, Muenster, and Agbeni. Exposure sources included birds, and the exposure settings included agricultural feed stores, dairy/farm/agricultural settings, educational settings (school/college/university), and child daycare/preschool.

Community 2 consisted of nodes representing states, serovars, exposure sources, and settings. The states included in community 2 were Washington, Texas, California, Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Utah, Nebraska, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Oregon, Arizona, Iowa, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The serovars in community 2 were Muenchen, Hadar, Typhimurium, Braenderup, Berta, Pomona, Montevideo, Newport, Indiana, I 4,[5],12:i:-, Thompson, Sandiego, Poona, Uganda, and Cotham. Animal sources included reptiles, mammals, and amphibians. The exposure setting was residential settings.

Among the 48 contiguous U.S. states and the District of Columbia, eleven states, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, New York, New Hampshire, North Dakota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and New Jersey, had zero connectivity (Degree = 0). Several exposure sources and settings also had zero connectivity (S4 Table). These variables were included in the Louvain community analysis, but their co-occurrence with other variables was too low to yield meaningful connections in the network. The data transformation process, where the presence-absence matrix (including U.S. states, exposure sources, and exposure settings) was converted into a co-occurrence matrix, retained only variables with co-occurrence frequencies greater than 5%. As a result, these variables were included in the analysis but had zero connectivity, reflecting minimal involvement in shared outbreaks with other states or exposure categories. (S4 Table).

A total of 38 states exhibited non-zero connectivity, and their degree values ranged from 53 to 67 across the connected states, serovars, exposure sources, and settings. Among these states, Virginia had the highest degree value of 67, followed by Pennsylvania and Washington (66 each). Among serovars, the highest degree of 43 was observed for Typhimurium, Enteritidis, and Infantis. Among exposure sources, birds showed the highest degree value of 59, followed by reptiles (53). Among exposure settings, agricultural feed stores had the highest degree value of 52, followed by residential settings (40), and farm/dairy/agricultural settings.

The strength ranged between 901 and 3465. Among states, Virginia had the highest strength value of 3465, followed by California (3301), Tennessee (3174), and Ohio (3157). Among exposure sources, birds showed the highest strength value of 3733, followed by reptiles (480) and mammals (96). Among serovars, the highest strength was observed for Enteritidis (1019), Infantis (828), Hadar (551), and Typhimurium (379). Among exposure sources, the highest strength was observed for agricultural feed stores (1237) and residential settings (326) (Table 2).

The betweenness centrality ranged between 0.02 and 279.91. Among states, Kansas (75.46), Washington (74.72), Utah (64.38), Georgia (61.75), and Delaware (53.90) exhibited the highest betweenness. Among exposure sources, amphibians showed the highest betweenness (279.91), followed by mammals (146.51). Among serovars, the highest betweenness was observed for Typhimurium var Copenhagen (279.91) and Cotham (241.30). Among exposure sources, the highest betweenness was for farm/dairy/agricultural settings (101.67).

The closeness centrality ranged between 0.24 and 0.56. Among states, the highest closeness was observed for Kansas (0.47), followed by Utah and Georgia (0.46 each). Among exposure sources, amphibians showed the highest closeness value (0.56), followed by mammals (0.42). Among serovars, Typhimurium var Copenhagen and Cotham (0.56 each) had the highest closeness value. While Enteritidis, Typhimurium, Braenderup, and Infantis had the lowest values. Among exposure sources, residential settings (0.42) and farm/dairy/agricultural settings (0.39) had high closeness values.

The clustering coefficients ranged between 0.72 and 1.00. Among states, Wyoming (0.92) and Montana (0.89) had the highest values. Among exposure sources, amphibians showed the highest clustering value of 1.00, followed by mammals (0.98). Among serovars, the highest clustering was observed for several, including Typhimurium var Copenhagen, Cotham, and Uganda. Among exposure settings, daycares and educational institutions had the highest values of 1.00, respectively (Table 2).

Discussion

This study provides a national characterization of animal‑contact-associated multistate NTS outbreaks in the U.S. over more than a decade of surveillance. An integrated approach was followed, which included the assessment of multistate NTS outbreak IR trends, exposure sources, settings, and interstate co‑occurrence patterns, identifying distinct serovar-exposure source-exposure setting-region clusters that reflect distinct transmission pathways and could inform prevention strategies. Among exposure sources, birds and reptiles, among exposure settings, agricultural feed stores and residential homes, among serovars Enteritidis, Infantis, Hadar, Typhimurium, and Braenderup, and among regions, the Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions contributed the most to NTS animal-contact related multistate outbreaks. These findings add to previous work on single‑state NTS outbreak patterns [50,51], which were smaller, geographically localized, and most often associated with exposures to mammals in farm settings or homes, reflecting localized animal husbandry practices, facility‑specific deficiencies, or household‑level risk factors. In contrast, this current analysis on multistate NTS outbreaks demonstrated that multistate outbreaks involved interstate connectivity and were predominantly linked to birds and reptiles. Our findings align with multiple investigations from the U.S. that described the interstate movement through commercial distribution channels of infected live poultry via mail-order hatcheries [21,52] and reptiles and amphibians via trade networks and illegal sale/distribution of small turtles [53] can disseminate Salmonella spp. contaminated animals across wide geographic areas before human illness is detected. To prevent and control NTS multistate outbreaks, cross‑jurisdictional surveillance, harmonized exposure assessments, educating at-risk populations (e.g., children) on non-food transmission routes of NTS, and prevention and control strategies that account for the national distribution systems of live birds and reptiles are suggested [52,53].

Findings from our study support strengthening upstream control of multistate NTS spread locations, including improving biosecurity measures at hatcheries, agricultural feed stores, reptile breeding facilities, and poultry-livestock shipment services [11,52]. The public health authorities should prioritize cross-jurisdiction collaborations and messaging during seasonal at-risk periods, and should incorporate standardized traceback investigations focusing on reptiles and poultry to reduce delays in identifying sources of transmission and spread [13,53].

The Joinpoint regression approach was used to examine temporal shifts in NTS multistate outbreak trends, which identified two distinct phases in multistate animal contact NTS outbreak incidence. The first period, from 2009 to 2013, showed a steep, statistically significant decline in IRs, and a second period from 2013 to 2022, where there was a nonsignificant but modest downward trend. Several factors may contribute to these patterns. The first period decrease might suggest upstream industry practices and regulatory actions that improved hatchery sanitation, expanded traceback capacity for live poultry and reptile distribution chains, and improved sequencing and subtyping of NTS isolates, aiding traceback investigations to link illnesses to exposure sources [21,52,53]. The second moderate decreasing phase might be explained by the COVID-19 outbreak, when enteric disease investigations and reporting were impacted by resource allocations to contain the pandemic [54]. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because our study evaluated national-level NTS outbreak trends, which might mask state-level local trends.

The data-driven supervised machine learning approach (Random Forest) identified important predictors, including animal contact exposure sources, settings, and States. Birds and reptiles, and outbreaks linked to agricultural feed stores and residential homes, were both the most commonly reported and the most informative variables in influencing the outcome of the analysis, suggesting that these sources and settings are frequent contributors to multistate animal-contact-related NTS outbreaks in the Northeast and Midwest and exhibit consistent patterns useful for outbreak classification and public‑health targeting.

The co-occurrence network analysis revealed regional clustering and identified heterogeneity among animal contact sources and exposure settings at the human-animal-environmental interfaces across the U.S. regions in the Midwest, Northeast, and South were high-burden states for poultry-associated outbreaks and were linked to exposure settings of agricultural feed stores, private homes, and serovars Infantis, Enteritidis, Altona, and Muenster, which have been described previously as a common source and setting for backyard poultry associated human infections [21,52].

The second network cluster included states in the West, Mountain West, and Southern U.S., with mammal, reptile, and amphibian exposure sources in residential settings. The serovars linked to this network included Typhimurium, I 4, [5],12:i:-, Muenchen, Braenderup, Hadar, Berta, Pomona, Montevideo, Newport, Indiana, Thompson, Poona, and Sandiego, Cotham, and Uganda, serovars more commonly linked to reptiles and amphibians [55]. The findings of our study are consistent with previous studies showing reptile and amphibian-associated NTS transmission in the West and South, where exotic pet ownership and wildlife were major risks of NTS transmission [53].

Serovar Typhimurium showed a broad host range, co-occurred with different exposure settings, in a wide multistate network, suggesting a varied adaptability, posing an increased risk. This common serovar, with overlapping exposure sources and transmission patterns, requires cross-sectoral interventions.

Prioritization of regions based on common reservoirs, serovars, and exposure settings should be considered when developing prevention and control strategies. In regions with high exotic pet adoptions/populations (reptiles/small mammalian household pets), education and outreach campaigns should focus on infection control practices when handling reptiles and exotic pets, obtaining reptiles from trusted breeders, and avoiding high-risk species [15,53,56]

Limitations

A key limitation of our co-occurrence analytical approach was the lack of information regarding the state of origin for multistate outbreaks. Additionally, the NORS outbreak data are subject to underreporting due to differences in reporting capacity across jurisdictions and a lack of uniformity in reported exposure sources or settings. Also, not all individuals with gastrointestinal illness seek medical care due to barriers such as limited access to healthcare, lack of insurance, socioeconomic constraints, or reluctance to visit a clinic for self-limiting symptoms. In addition, NORS is a passive, voluntary surveillance platform, and reporting completeness might vary across states and over time. Finally, the disease burden presented reflects data available through August 2024, when the dataset was made available for this study, while ongoing investigations and delayed reporting may influence future estimates [13], and interpretation of our results should be made with caution. Future studies should evaluate the most recent NTS outbreak trends.

Conclusion

This study examined animal contact-related multistate NTS outbreaks across the U.S. between 2009 and 2022. The study findings suggest that outbreaks in different regions (communities) were associated with distinct serovar profiles, exposure sources, and settings, highlighting potential geographical and environmental factors that drive the spread of NTS infections. Machine learning and network analysis identified key serovars (Enteritidis, Typhimurium, Infantis, Hadar) and exposure sources (birds, reptiles, mammals) and settings (agricultural feed stores, residential, and farms), in the Midwest, Northeast, and Mountain West, as influential factors shaping outbreak patterns. Temporal trends in the NTS outbreak IRs indicated a stabilizing pattern in later years. These findings highlight the complexity of NTS transmission dynamics across human, animal, and environmental interfaces, which traditional epidemiological methods cannot fully capture. Integrating advanced analytical tools into disease surveillance can enhance understanding of the factors driving NTS persistence and transmission. Future research should refine these models to support public health initiatives aimed at reducing NTS disease burden.

Public health implications

Our study supports the need for targeted interventions at key multi-state NTS outbreak drivers, including poultry and livestock operations, live poultry and reptile distribution supply chains, mail‑order hatcheries, agricultural feed stores, and residential settings. The presence of distinct regional clusters asks for region‑specific prevention strategies rather than uniform national approaches. Strengthening upstream controls, enhancing biosecurity, and improving hygiene practices in high‑risk settings can help disrupt interstate transmission. Finally, standardized and timely reporting, modernization of surveillance systems, and improved communication between federal agencies and state and local health departments could enhance early detection of multistate outbreaks and increase the overall effectiveness of pathogen‑reduction efforts.

Supporting information

S1 Table. National-level nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreak and illness incidence rates across the U.S. 2009–2022.

The S1 Table represents the national NTS multistate outbreak incidence rates (Per 10 Million Population-Years).

(DOCX)

pone.0344889.s001.docx (38.3KB, docx)
S2 Table. Trend analysis results of the Joinpoint regression models of nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica multistate outbreak incidence rates at the national level across the U.S., 2009–2022.

The output from which the appropriate model was selected for the graph by the software based on BIC and AIC values. APC (Annual Percent Change), Segment Start (Point where Joinpoint is inserted), Segment end (where next Joinpoint is inserted or trend stabilized), APC 95% LCL (Annual Percent Change 95% Lower Confidence Limit), APC 95% UCL (APC 95% Upper Confidence Limit). The Joinpoint regression analysis presents different models with joinpoints, significant and nonsignificant temporal shifts over time.

(DOCX)

pone.0344889.s002.docx (17.2KB, docx)
S3 Table. Random Forest classifier ranking (relative importance) of categorical variables in nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreaks across the US., 2009–2022.

The above table indicates the Random Forest (RF) classifier ranking of categorical variables. Each category’s rank (relative importance) has been mentioned.

(DOCX)

pone.0344889.s003.docx (19.9KB, docx)
S4 Table. Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica serovars animal contact-related multistate outbreaks co-occurrence network and Louvain community memberships of nodes with no node metrics across the U.S. 2009–2022.

The co-occurrence network analysis of NTS multistate outbreaks presents the US states, NTS serovars, animal exposure sources, and settings as nodes. Degree is the number of connections each node has, strength is the frequency of shared outbreaks, Betweenness: the number of times a node is on the shortest path between two nodes, Closeness: how close the node is to all other nodes in the network, Clustering Coefficient: a measurement of local connectivity, and Louvain Communities: a group of densely connected nodes. States: NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey, NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, RI-Rhode Island, SC-South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, WV-West Virginia, DC-District of Columbia. Animal Sources: FSH-Fish, Exposure settings; OTH-Others, HOS-Hospital, VET-Veterinary clinic, FRG-Fairground, Serovars; Serovars: SPBT-Paratyphi B var. L(+) tartrate + , STP-Saintpaul, SJAV-Javiana,STLK-Telelkebir, UNK-unknown, SHDL-Heidelberg, SHFD-Hartford, SDRB-Durban, SGMN-Gaminara, SLML-Lomalinda, SSTN-Stanley, SHVN-Havana, SLIT-Litchfield, SAPP-Apapa, SFLU-Fluntern, SAGO-Agona, SOFF-Offa, SOTH-other, SALA-Alachua, SANA-Anatum, SMAN-Manhattan, SORA-Oranienburg, SGUN-Guinea, SLIV-Liverpool, SEAL-Ealing, SBAN-Banana, SVIT-Vitkin, SLOM-Lome, SSB3-Subspecies IIIb.

(DOCX)

pone.0344889.s004.docx (21.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We want to acknowledge the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) for providing access to the dataset.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data Availability

Publicly available data used in this study are accessible through the CDC BEAM Dashboard (https://www.cdc.gov/beam/dashboard/index.html). This study also analyzed more detailed, non‑public data obtained under a data use agreement. These restricted data are not publicly available, and the authors did not have special access privileges beyond the terms of the agreement. Third-party data requests should be directed to NORS staff at NORSAdmin@cdc.gov.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Majowicz SE, Musto J, Scallan E, Angulo FJ, Kirk M, O’Brien SJ, et al. The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(6):882–9. doi: 10.1086/650733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBD 2017 Non-Typhoidal Salmonella Invasive Disease Collaborators. The global burden of non-typhoidal salmonella invasive disease: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(12):1312–24. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30418-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim S, Kang H, Excler J-L, Kim JH, Lee J-S. The Economic Burden of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella and Invasive Non-Typhoidal Salmonella Infection: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines (Basel). 2024;12(7):758. doi: 10.3390/vaccines12070758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.He Y, Jia Q, Cai K, Xu S, Li H, Xie Q, et al. The global, regional, and national burden of invasive non-typhoidal salmonella (iNTS): An analysis from the global burden of disease study 1990–2021. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kumar G, Kumar S, Jangid H, Dutta J, Shidiki A. The rise of non-typhoidal Salmonella: an emerging global public health concern. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1524287. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1524287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Whitehill FM, Stapleton GS, Koski L, Sievert D, Nichols M. Risk factors for hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years with non-typhoidal Salmonella infection linked to backyard poultry contact. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022;69:215–23. doi: 10.1111/zph.12911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Marus JR, Magee MJ, Manikonda K, Nichols MC. Outbreaks of Salmonella enterica infections linked to animal contact: demographic and outbreak characteristics and comparison to foodborne outbreaks—United States, 2009–2014. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66:370–6. doi: 10.1111/zph.12569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Whitehill FM, Stapleton GS, Koski L, Sievert D, Nichols M. Risk factors for hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years with non-typhoidal Salmonella infection linked to backyard poultry contact. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022;69:215–23. doi: 10.1111/zph.12911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Billah MM, Rahman MS. Salmonella in the environment: A review on ecology, antimicrobial resistance, seafood contaminations, and human health implications. J Hazard Mat Adv. 2024;13:100407. doi: 10.1016/j.hazadv.2024.100407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gambino-Shirley K, Stevenson L, Concepción-Acevedo J, Trees E, Wagner D, Whitlock L, et al. Flea market finds and global exports: Four multistate outbreaks of human Salmonella infections linked to small turtles, United States-2015. Zoonoses Public Health. 2018;65(5):560–8. doi: 10.1111/zph.12466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Habing GG, Kessler SE, Mollenkopf DF, Wittum TE, Anderson TC, Barton Behravesh C, et al. Distribution and Diversity of Salmonella Strains in Shipments of Hatchling Poultry, United States, 2013. Zoonoses Public Health. 2015;62(5):375–80. doi: 10.1111/zph.12157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nakao JH, Pringle J, Jones RW, Nix BE, Borders J, Heseltine G, et al. One Health investigation: Outbreak of human Salmonella Braenderup infections traced to a mail-order hatchery - United States, 2012-2013. Epidemiology and Infection. 2015;143:2178–86. doi: 10.1017/S0950268815000151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Eisenstein T, Wong M, Vahey G, Toepfer AP, Gleason B, Benedict K. Enteric Disease Outbreaks Associated with Animal Contact - Animal Contact Outbreak Surveillance System, United States, 2009-2021. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2025;74(3):1–12. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7403a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nichols M, Gollarza L, Palacios A, Stapleton GS, Basler C, Hoff C, et al. Salmonella illness outbreaks linked to backyard poultry purchasing during the COVID-19 pandemic: United States, 2020. Epidemiol Infect. 2021;149. doi: 10.1017/S0950268821002132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Varela K, Brown JA, Lipton B, Dunn J, Stanek D, Behravesh CB, et al. A Review of Zoonotic Disease Threats to Pet Owners: A Compendium of Measures to Prevent Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Non-Traditional Pets: Rodents and Other Small Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, Backyard Poultry, and Other Selected Animals. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2022;22(6):303–60. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2022.0022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hoff C, Nichols M, Gollarza L, Scheftel J, Adams J, Tagg KA, et al. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium linked to pet hedgehogs, United States, 2018–2019. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022;69:167–74. doi: 10.1111/zph.12904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bartholomew ML, Heffernan RT, Wright JG, Klos RF, Monson T, Khan S, et al. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis infection associated with pet guinea pigs. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14(6):414–21. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2013.1506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Silva C, Calva E, Maloy S. One Health and Food-Borne Disease: Salmonella Transmission between Humans, Animals, and Plants. Microbiol Spectr. 2014;2(1):OH-0020-2013. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.OH-0020-2013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Notes from the field: Multistate outbreak of Salmonella infantis, newport, and lille infections linked to live poultry from a single mail-order hatchery in Ohio--March-September, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(11):213. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.White AE, Jackson C, Kisselburgh H, Ledbetter C, Scallan Walter E. Using Outbreak Data for Hypothesis Generation: A Vehicle Prediction Tool for Disease Outbreaks Caused by Salmonella and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2022;19(4):281–9. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2021.0090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stapleton GS, Habrun C, Nemechek K, Gollarza L, Ellison Z, Tolar B. Zoonoses Public Health. 2024;71:708–22. doi: 10.1111/zph.13134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Frey E, Stapleton GS, Nichols MC, Gollarza LM, Birhane M, Chen JC, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in multistate outbreaks of nontyphoidal Salmonella infections linked to animal contact—United States, 2015–2018. J Clin Microbiol. 2024;62. doi: 10.1128/jcm.00981-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.CDC. About the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/foodborne-outbreaks/php/tools/sedric.html [Google Scholar]
  • 24.CDC. Animal Contact Outbreak Surveillance System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). https://www.cdc.gov/nors/about/acoss.html [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Reintjes R, Zanuzdana A. Outbreak Investigations. Infectious Disease Epidemiology. 2009. 159–76. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-93835-6_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.CDC. Coordination of multiple states and federal agencies. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.CDC. National Outbreak Reporting System. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.US Census Bureau. US: Annual Population Estimates. United States Census Bureau. 2024. https://www.census.gov/topics/population.html [Google Scholar]
  • 29.U.S. Census Bureau. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. United States Census Bureau. 2024. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.html [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wickham H, Bryan J. readxl: Read Excel Files. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2015. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.readxl [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ooms J. Writexl: Export Data Frames to Excel “xlsx” Format. CRAN: Contributed Packages. 2017. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.writexl [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K, Vaughan D. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2014. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.dplyr [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wickham H, Vaughan D, Girlich M. tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2014. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.tidyr [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.CDC. Animal Categorization Scheme. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nors/about/categorization.html#:~:text=To%20support%20analyses%20of%20outbreaks,%2C%20major%20group%2C%20and%20subgroup [Google Scholar]
  • 35.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Statistical Methodology and Application Branch, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. Joinpoint Regression Program. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Janitza S, Hornung R. On the overestimation of random forest’s out-of-bag error. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Breiman L, Cutler A, Liaw A, Wiener M. randomForest: Breiman and Cutler’s Random Forests for Classification and Regression. CRAN R Project. 2002. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.randomForest [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ha VTH, Son NT, Khoa D, Long LP, Ngan PT. Imbalanced data classification using random forest with ward clustering. Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng. 2025;1:47–51. doi: 10.61591/jslhu.22.726 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mantero A, Ishwaran H. Unsupervised random forests. Stat Anal Data Min. 2021;14(2):144–67. doi: 10.1002/sam.11498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. JOSS. 2019;4(43):1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Oksanen J, Simpson GL, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2026. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Melville J. uwot: The Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) Method for Dimensionality Reduction. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2019. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.uwot [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wickham H, Chang W, Henry L, Pedersen TL, Takahashi K, Wilke C, et al. ggplot2: Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2007. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.ggplot2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kolde R. pheatmap: Pretty heatmaps. CRAN. 2010. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.pheatmap [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Csárdi G, Nepusz T, Traag V, Horvát S, Zanini F, Noom D, et al. igraph: Network Analysis and Visualization. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2006. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.igraph [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schöttler S, Yang Y, Pfister H, Bach B. Visualizing and Interacting with Geospatial Networks: A Survey and Design Space. Computer Graphics Forum. 2021;40(6):5–33. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14198 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Allaire JJ, Gandrud C, Russell K, Yetman C. networkD3: D3 JavaScript network graphs from R. CRAN: Contributed packages. 2014. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.networkD3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pedersen TL. ggraph: An Implementation of Grammar of Graphics for Graphs and Networks. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation. 2017. doi: 10.32614/cran.package.ggraph [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bajwa HUR, Bhowmick S, Varga C. Animal contact-related nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica outbreaks in humans in the U.S. (2009-2022): serovar-specific temporal trends and associations with exposure sources and settings. Front Public Health. 2026;14:1755882. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1755882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bajwa HUR, Bhowmick S, Varga C. Temporal trends and source attribution of animal-contact related human nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica outbreaks across the United States, 2009-2022. Ann Epidemiol. 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2025.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hardy MC, Robertson SA, Sidge J, Signs K, Stobierski MG, Jones K, et al. Notes from the Field: Environmental Investigation of a Multistate Salmonellosis Outbreak Linked to Live Backyard Poultry from a Mail-Order Hatchery - Michigan, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;67(5152):1430–1. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm675152a5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Waltenburg MA, Perez A, Salah Z, Karp BE, Whichard J, Tolar B, et al. Multistate reptile- and amphibian-associated salmonellosis outbreaks in humans, United States, 2009–2018. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022;69:925–37. doi: 10.1111/zph.12990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Crane MA, Popovic A, Panaparambil R, Stolbach AI, Romley JA, Ghanem KG. Reporting of Infectious Diseases in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74(5):901–4. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hepps Keeney CM, Petritz OA. Zoonotic Gastroenteric Diseases of Exotic Animals. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2025;28(2):365–79. doi: 10.1016/j.cvex.2024.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pratt EN, Lockwood JL, King EG, Pienaar EF. Identifying inconsistencies in exotic pet regulations that perpetuate trade in risky species. Conserv Biol. 2024;38(2):e14189. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yung-Fu Chang

20 Apr 2026

-->PONE-D-26-09918-->-->Multistate Animal-Contact-Related Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica Outbreaks in the United States, 2009-2022: Network and Machine Learning Analyses of Exposure Sources, Settings, and Serovars-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Varga,

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

Your manuscript has been reviewed by an expert in your field and a major revision is needed before a decision can be made..

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal requirements:

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

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

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

4. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of data protection. Data are available from the CDC NORS via data request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Overall comment: The authors conducted a study titled “Multistate Animal-Contact-Related Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica Outbreaks in the United States, 2009-2022: Network and Machine Learning Analyses of Exposure Sources, Settings, and Serovars” that analyzed animal contact-related non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) outbreak data, which was utilized for calculating incidence rate per 10 million population‑years, assessed temporal trends using Join point regression, co‑occurrence network linking, and machine learning classification algorithm, such as a random forest classifier to identify variables most useful for distinguishing outbreak profiles. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides important information on the burden of multistate NTS outbreaks associated with animal contact. This manuscript addresses an important one-health issue. However, the following comments need to be addressed to improve the manuscript clarity and readability.

Specific comment:

Introduction:

Comment: The author should include a brief introduction about the public health burden of non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), including the predominant NTS serovars in the United States.

Comment: The relevance of the study is unclear. The author should clarify why this study findings are important (by addressing the “so what?” question in the introduction section).

Materials and Methods:

Comment: The author should provide a brief description of how animal contact related NTS outbreak surveillance data were collected to help the reader understand the data source, collection, population, and reporting process.

Comment: The author should describe how the surveillance data is assessed, including missing values, value distributions, and duplication, before preparing the analytic dataset for this study.

Comment: Authors should provide a clear case definition of 'animal contact related NTS outbreak' for better understanding by the readers of the paper. Additionally, the author should mention the inclusion criteria for including ‘animal contact related NTS outbreak' events for analysis in this study.

Comment: The author should report the study design in the methods section.

Comment (Line 116): The author should provide a full elaboration of ‘NORS’ before introducing the abbreviation.

Comment (Line 145): Authors should provide a table that displays all explanatory variables (features), along with their categories and types, to enhance reader understanding about the variables of interest in this study.

Comment: The author should provide a logical order of data analysis, with their headings, to test each hypothesis in this study

Comment: The author should specify the version of the Joinpoint Regression (JPR) software used in this study.

Comment (Line 144): What is the reasoning behind exclusively using the random forest model (RF)? How do the authors partition (%) the data into training and testing sets for the RF model? The author should provide this information. Did the author try any alternative classification algorithm (e.g., logistic regression ….) as part of the sensitivity analysis? What form of cross‑validation was used to assess the RF model's performance? The author should specify the R packages used for the RF modeling.

Comment: The author should provide a brief introduction and a rationale for the network analysis and explain why the network is treated as undirected and weighted. Additionally, the author should specify the R packages used in the study's network analysis.

Comment (Line 144): In the RF model section, the author should specify the outcome variable and explain how it is defined. Also, specify the predictor of interest and explain how the predictors were chosen for inclusion in the model.

Comment: It would be helpful if the author included the full R scripts for the RF model and network analyses as supplementary files to help readers and learners understand the analyses.

Results:

Comment (Line 190-192): These sentences should be in the method section, not part of the result section of the manuscript.

Comment (Line 193-194): These sentences should be placed in the discussion section, not in the results section. In the RF model results, the reader can expect to see the RF model performance matrices and the variable importance identified in the RF model (top, second, and third variables) as the strongest predictors of the outcome variable of interest.

Comment (Line 228-232): These sentences are not results; they are part of the discussion. The author should remove this section from the results section and place it in the appropriate section in the discussion.

Discussion

Comment: The author should provide a primary conclusion statement that logically and defensibly draws from the study results.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shamim Sarkar

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments and suggestions-PONE-D-26-09918-v3.pdf

pone.0344889.s005.pdf (224.8KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Jun 5;21(6):e0344889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344889.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 May 2026

We are thankful to the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. We have addressed all comments to improve the organization, clarity, and transparency of our manuscript. The revisions have been incorporated into the updated manuscript, as described below.

Response to Journal Requirements

Journal requirements:

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

Comment

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response:

The manuscript follows PLOS ONE's style requirements as outlined in the provided templates. Please see the revised manuscript file.

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

Response:

The codes used in the analysis will be shared upon acceptance of our work.

Comment

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

Response:

The in-text citations were updated according to PLOS ONE requirements. The supporting information file has also been updated accordingly.

4. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

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

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

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

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

Response:

The base maps were generated using TIGER/Line shapefiles provided by the United States Census Bureau. These are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. Under the US copyright act (USC § 105), works of the US government are not eligible for copyright protection. Therefore, the maps are freely available for public use and comply with the CC BY 4.0 licensing requirements. Additionally, we have indicated this in our data source section of materials and methods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response:

Not applicable to our situation. Please see our response above.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of data protection. Data are available from the CDC NORS via data request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Response:

We updated the data availability statement as follows: “The data underlying the findings described in the manuscript are available within the manuscript and in the supplementary files.“

Response to Reviewers

The author should include a brief introduction about the public health burden of non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), including the predominant NTS serovars in the United States.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We included a section on the disease burden and main NTS serovars:

“Globally, NTS causes over 95 million enteric illnesses, with more than 500,000 invasive infections, leading to high fatality rates [2]. It also poses an economic burden, contributing to millions of disability-adjusted life years and to substantial healthcare costs worldwide [3]. Most of NTS infections are self-limiting; however, severe invasive disease can occur, primarily affecting immunocompromised individuals, infants, children, and the elderly, often resulting in death [4]. The NTS bacteria are adaptable to various hosts, with NTS serovars such as Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Heidelberg, and Infantis being common causes of human enteric disease, including in the U.S. [5]. “

Comment:

The relevance of the study is unclear. The author should clarify why this study findings are important (by addressing the “so what?” question in the introduction section).

Response:

We updated the introduction section to address your comment and included the following:

“No previous study explored long-term, NTS serovar-level animal contact-related multistate outbreaks in the US, and the relationship between serovars and animal contact sources remains unclear. Previous epidemiological studies focused on individual serovars or specific exposure sources, limiting the full scope of NTS transmission dynamics across the U.S. [16,21,22]. In multistate outbreaks, interconnected events might involve shared distribution systems, supply chains, and occupational exposures [21], and an integrated analytical approach is needed to quantify NTS burden and identify factors that sustain its endemicity across various reservoirs and regions.”

Comment:

The author should provide a brief description of how animal contact related NTS outbreak surveillance data were collected to help the reader understand the data source, collection, population, and reporting process.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.

WE included a section on NORS and included the following:

“Data source, study design, and setting

The National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) is a voluntary disease surveillance system managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that collects reports on enteric disease outbreaks, including those transmitted through animal contact. Animal contact is defined as any interaction between humans and animals that may result in the transmission of infectious agents. This includes direct contact with animals, such as handling, feeding, or caring for them, and indirect contact through exposure to animal environments, such as barns, petting zoos, or farms. Exposure sources include livestock, poultry, reptiles, and other animals, and outbreaks are included in this category where animal contact is suspected or confirmed as a contributing factor to the transmission of infectious diseases. [23, 24]. The NORS is used by local health departments, state-level health authorities, and the CDC to report and track outbreaks [24]. An outbreak is defined as the occurrence of more cases than expected within a period, a specific location, and a target population [25]. Multistate (more than 2 states) NTS outbreak investigations are coordinated and reported to NORS by CDC staff, while single-state outbreaks are investigated and reported to NORS by single jurisdictions [26].”

Comment:

The author should describe how the surveillance data is assessed, including missing values, value distributions, and duplication, before preparing the analytic dataset for this study.

Response:

We included all the available data in NORS. To explain our study approach, we included the following: This retrospective observational study analyzes human NTS animal contact-related multistate outbreaks. It includes all outbreaks with confirmed or suspected status, along with data on serovars, exposure states, animal contact exposure sources, and settings. Outbreaks with “not available” or "other" categories for serovars, exposure sources, and settings were treated as distinct categories for further analysis.”

Comment:

Authors should provide a clear case definition of 'animal contact related NTS outbreak' for better understanding by the readers of the paper. Additionally, the author should mention the inclusion criteria for including ‘animal contact related NTS outbreak' events for analysis in this study.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. We included the definition of “animal-contact outbreaks, and included the following:

“Animal contact is defined as any interaction between humans and animals that may result in the transmission of infectious agents. This includes direct contact with animals, such as handling, feeding, or caring for them, and indirect contact through exposure to animal environments, such as barns, petting zoos, or farms. Exposure sources include livestock, poultry, reptiles, and other animals, and outbreaks are included in this category where animal contact is suspected or confirmed as a contributing factor to the transmission of infectious diseases.”

Comment:

The author should report the study design in the methods section.

Response:

We included the following: “This retrospective observational study analyzes human NTS animal contact-related multistate outbreaks.”

Comment:

(Line 116): The author should provide a full elaboration of ‘NORS’ before introducing the abbreviation.

Response:

We corrected this and defined NORS before the abbreviation.

Comment:

(Line 145): Authors should provide a table that displays all explanatory variables (features), along with their categories and types, to enhance reader understanding about the variables of interest in this study.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We included a Table at the end of the Descriptive Statistics section to describe the variables used in our analysis.

We included the following: “Table 1 summarizes the explanatory variables (features) used in the analysis, including their description, type, category, and the specific analysis in which they were applied.

Table 1. Summary of variables used for the analysis of Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreaks across the US, 2009 – 2022“

Comment:

The author should provide a logical order of data analysis, with their headings, to test each hypothesis in this study

Response:

We provided a logical data analysis starting from general and more complex analyses. We included subsection titles for each step, as follows:

Assessing NTS outbreak incidence rates

Temporal trend analysis using the Joinpoint regression method

Random Forest analysis of multi-state outbreak data

Network analysis of multi-state outbreak data

Comment:

The author should specify the version of the Joinpoint Regression (JPR) software used in this study.

Response:

The version of the Joinpoint Regression software was added.

Comment

(Line 144): What is the reasoning behind exclusively using the random forest model (RF)?

Response

We have used the RF model as it can handle sparse reported binary surveillance data and to learn the nonlinear relationships amongst the different feature variables embedded into the model. We updated the manuscript, and included the following: “We analyzed the binary dataset of human NTS multistate outbreaks from 2009 to 2022 using the Random Forest (RF) modeling approach. The RF method is a flexible, non-parametric ensemble learning technique that can perform well with high-dimensional datasets, which contain correlated and binary predictors, as our surveillance dataset carries the same characteristics. The RF method can also model complex, non-linear relationships among the higher-dimensional model variables, and it can also include higher-order interactions without requiring explicit specifications. In addition, RF also incorporates internally validated performance estimates through out-of-bag (OOB) error and can generate interpretable variable importance measures, which were central to our objective of identifying the key driving factors distinguishing cluster membership into the model [36]. The RF model is less sensitive to multicollinearity and overfitting than traditional regression-based approaches, and is suitable for exploratory analyses of complex multistate outbreak data with many potentially correlated indicators.”

Comment

How do the authors partition (%) the data into training and testing sets for the RF model?

Response

We didn’t implement an explicit training/test split or cross-validation procedure. We have checked the model performance through the out-of-bag (OOB) error estimation inherent to the random forest algorithm; this has now been clarified in the manuscript.

We included the following: “In addition, RF also incorporates internally validated pe

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Editor_Reviewers.R1.docx

pone.0344889.s006.docx (49.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yung-Fu Chang

21 May 2026

Multistate animal-contact-related nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica outbreaks in the United States, 2009-2022: Network and machine learning analyses of exposure sources, settings, and serovars

PONE-D-26-09918R1

Dear Dr. Varga,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

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

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shamim Sarkar

**********

Acceptance letter

Yung-Fu Chang

PONE-D-26-09918R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Varga,

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

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

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

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

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. National-level nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreak and illness incidence rates across the U.S. 2009–2022.

    The S1 Table represents the national NTS multistate outbreak incidence rates (Per 10 Million Population-Years).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344889.s001.docx (38.3KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Trend analysis results of the Joinpoint regression models of nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica multistate outbreak incidence rates at the national level across the U.S., 2009–2022.

    The output from which the appropriate model was selected for the graph by the software based on BIC and AIC values. APC (Annual Percent Change), Segment Start (Point where Joinpoint is inserted), Segment end (where next Joinpoint is inserted or trend stabilized), APC 95% LCL (Annual Percent Change 95% Lower Confidence Limit), APC 95% UCL (APC 95% Upper Confidence Limit). The Joinpoint regression analysis presents different models with joinpoints, significant and nonsignificant temporal shifts over time.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344889.s002.docx (17.2KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Random Forest classifier ranking (relative importance) of categorical variables in nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica animal contact-related multistate outbreaks across the US., 2009–2022.

    The above table indicates the Random Forest (RF) classifier ranking of categorical variables. Each category’s rank (relative importance) has been mentioned.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344889.s003.docx (19.9KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica serovars animal contact-related multistate outbreaks co-occurrence network and Louvain community memberships of nodes with no node metrics across the U.S. 2009–2022.

    The co-occurrence network analysis of NTS multistate outbreaks presents the US states, NTS serovars, animal exposure sources, and settings as nodes. Degree is the number of connections each node has, strength is the frequency of shared outbreaks, Betweenness: the number of times a node is on the shortest path between two nodes, Closeness: how close the node is to all other nodes in the network, Clustering Coefficient: a measurement of local connectivity, and Louvain Communities: a group of densely connected nodes. States: NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey, NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, RI-Rhode Island, SC-South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, WV-West Virginia, DC-District of Columbia. Animal Sources: FSH-Fish, Exposure settings; OTH-Others, HOS-Hospital, VET-Veterinary clinic, FRG-Fairground, Serovars; Serovars: SPBT-Paratyphi B var. L(+) tartrate + , STP-Saintpaul, SJAV-Javiana,STLK-Telelkebir, UNK-unknown, SHDL-Heidelberg, SHFD-Hartford, SDRB-Durban, SGMN-Gaminara, SLML-Lomalinda, SSTN-Stanley, SHVN-Havana, SLIT-Litchfield, SAPP-Apapa, SFLU-Fluntern, SAGO-Agona, SOFF-Offa, SOTH-other, SALA-Alachua, SANA-Anatum, SMAN-Manhattan, SORA-Oranienburg, SGUN-Guinea, SLIV-Liverpool, SEAL-Ealing, SBAN-Banana, SVIT-Vitkin, SLOM-Lome, SSB3-Subspecies IIIb.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344889.s004.docx (21.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments and suggestions-PONE-D-26-09918-v3.pdf

    pone.0344889.s005.pdf (224.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor_Reviewers.R1.docx

    pone.0344889.s006.docx (49.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Publicly available data used in this study are accessible through the CDC BEAM Dashboard (https://www.cdc.gov/beam/dashboard/index.html). This study also analyzed more detailed, non‑public data obtained under a data use agreement. These restricted data are not publicly available, and the authors did not have special access privileges beyond the terms of the agreement. Third-party data requests should be directed to NORS staff at NORSAdmin@cdc.gov.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES