Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237780

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

Katherine Royce 1,*,#, Feng Fu 1,#
Editor: Chris T Bauch2
PMCID: PMC7449412  PMID: 32845922

Abstract

Modeling the behavior of zoonotic pandemic threats is a key component of their control. Many emerging zoonoses, such as SARS, Nipah, and Hendra, mutated from their wild type while circulating in an intermediate host population, usually a domestic species, to become more transmissible among humans, and this transmission route will only become more likely as agriculture and trade intensifies around the world. Passage through an intermediate host enables many otherwise rare diseases to become better adapted to humans, and so understanding this process with accurate mathematical models is necessary to prevent epidemics of emerging zoonoses, guide policy interventions in public health, and predict the behavior of an epidemic. In this paper, we account for a zoonotic disease mutating in an intermediate host by introducing a new mathematical model for disease transmission among three species. We present a model of these disease dynamics, including the equilibria of the system and the basic reproductive number of the pathogen, finding that in the presence of biologically realistic interspecies transmission parameters, a zoonotic disease with the capacity to mutate in an intermediate host population can establish itself in humans even if its R0 in humans is less than 1. This result and model can be used to predict the behavior of any zoonosis with an intermediate host and assist efforts to protect public health.

Introduction

Zoonotic diseases, which originate in animals and infect humans, are one of the most concerning epidemic threats of the 21st century and form 60% of all known infectious diseases [1]. Zoonoses such as HIV-AIDS, avian influenza, SARS, Ebola, Nipah, Hendra, and rabies all trace their origin to nonhuman reservoir species [2], and zoonoses comprise 75% of emerging infectious disease [3]. The World Health Organization cites “Disease X”, a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease that might evolve to become more transmissible among humans, as a priority for research and development in pandemic prevention [4], a threat underscored in recent months by the SARS-CoV2 pandemic.

While the dynamics of a zoonosis in its reservoir host are frequently cited as an influence on its emergence in humans [1], current mathematical models of zoonoses lack the capacity to represent their complete evolution. Some of the most pressing unaddressed questions in establishing the mathematical theory of zoonoses include better capturing disease dynamics within nonhuman species in order to characterize changes in the disease before it infects humans; focusing on the first cases of human infection to understand how a pathogen actively adapts to humans; and developing a theory for the role of intermediate hosts in the emergence of the disease [5]. Lloyd et al. (2009) [6] blame a desire to view zoonoses in a piecewise manner, as a concatenation of different epidemics rather than a connected system, for the lack of quantitative understanding of zoonoses as a new type of disease; in particular, there are few unifying mathematical theories or sets of principles that can be used to frame discussions of zoonotic spillovers [5]. This gap in modeling spillover dynamics limits our understanding of zoonoses, as does a general lack of mathematical modeling of multihost pathogens and quantification of the rate of human-to-human transmission [6, 7]. This paper provides such a mathematical model for a zoonosis emerging through an intermediate host.

In contrast to pathogens which evolved to infect humans, such as smallpox, the biology of emerging zoonoses is adapted to their reservoir host species. Since a pathogen’s transmissibility can also be affected by anthropogenic factors such as the host species’ population structure or resource and habitat availability [7], intermediate hosts−a non-reservoir animal species in which a zoonotic pathogen circulates−particularly domestic animals, provide greater opportunity for a pathogen to mutate to a human-transmissible form, because these species are biologically similar to the pathogen’s wild reservoir and have greater contact with humans. As an example of the role of intermediate hosts, the adaptation of avian influenza, one of the most well-studied zoonoses, to humans requires a mutation in domestic pigs or poultry. Avian influenza’s success in a new host species is governed by its receptor binding specificity [8]; with circulation in domestic pigs, which express both human- and avian-influenza type receptors in their tracheae, the virus has an opportunity to mutate to a form that can infect humans ([9], [10]). The influenzas are perhaps the easiest example to understand, as reassortment of different hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subtypes within one infected pig can produce entirely new pathogens [9], but less drastic mutations can alter the transmissibility or lethality of any zoonosis. The disease dynamics that resulted from repeated introductions of Nipah virus from bats, the pathogen’s reservoir host, to pigs enambled the pathogen to persist in its intermediate host and thus infect humans [1113]). Table 1, a sampling of zoonoses for which an intermediate host has been identified, shows notable case studies of zoonoses with domesticated species as intermediate hosts.

Table 1. Zoonotic diseases with intermediate hosts.

Disease Reservoir Host Intermediate Host Source
Nipah virus encephalitis bats pigs [1, 2, 5, 11]
Hendra virus disease bats horses [2, 5, 11]
SARS bats civets [5]
Avian influenza wild birds domestic poultry, pigs [16, 20, 21]
Menangle virus disease bats pigs [2, 11]
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome bats camels [22]
Campylobacteriosis wild birds domestic poultry [23]
Japanese encephalitis wild birds pigs [23]
Covid-19 bats unknown [24]

In an intermediate host species, a pathogen can gain more exposure to humans and mutate to a human-transmissible form, an evolution not previously studied. Childs et al. (2019) [14] consider the risk of yellow fever spillover in Brazil, but do not investigate reservoir infection dynamics nor consider pathogen mutation over the course of an epidemic. Similarly, Washburne et al. (2019) [15] introduce percolation models of pathogen spillover in an attempt to capture the complexity of multispecies diseases, but note that this type of model does not capture epidemiological feedback between nonhuman species. Iwami et al. (2007) [16] and Gumel et al. (2009) [17] conceptualize avian influenza mutation as occurring within humans rather than another species, a framework which ignores the key population in the spread of a zoonosis: Richard et al. (2014) [8] cite two barriers, jumping to humans and efficient human-to-human transmission, that a zoonotic pathogen must overcome, and this change frequently occurs in the “mixing vessel” of an intermediate host species [9]. Plowright et al. (2017) [18] present a conceptual model of spillover intended to assess zoonotic risk and identify barriers to spillover, but their quantitative model lacks SIR dynamics in nonhuman species, instead conceptualizing disease in animals as merely a force of infection applied to the human population, and makes no mention of the crucial role played by intermediate hosts. Further, controlling a human epidemic of a zoonotic disease depends on controlling the basic reproduction number in both animals and humans [19], interventions not previously studied together. With a mathematical theory for a human-transmissible disease arising from a zoonotic pathogen in an intermediate host population, researchers can investigate the cumulative effect of evolution in multiple species and policymakers can move towards prevention of a human pandemic rather than amelioration of one [5]. While recent modeling efforts have addressed the spillover process from reservoir host to humans, the role of intermediate hosts as amplifiers or mutators of a pathogen, a defining part of zoonotic spillover, remains underdeveloped and lacks a strong theoretical foundation.

The model presented here is based on the basic SIR model first presented by Kermack and McKendrick (1927) [25], as well as the introduction to multihost SIR models presented by Allen et al. (2012) [7]. We build on more well-known examples such as models for vector-borne diseases, which must infect both its host species (rather than opportunistically jumping to a new species) and follows set steps in its life cycle in both (rather than unpredictably mutating in a new host), contrasting our model with a vector-borne SIR one which merely adds more compartments for the pathogen to run through. Andraud et al. (2012) [26], in a review paper of deterministic models of dengue, note that the disease dynamics among the vector population are frequently simplified to a mere force of infection for the human one, since the disease does not evolve within the vector species. In contrast, a zoonosis model must consider the disease dynamics in its nonhuman compartments, since these dynamics determine whether the pathogen reaches humans at all. Attempts have been made to model zoonotic spillovers [6, 7, 27], but without incorporating changes in the pathogen’s ecology over the course of an epidemic, these models are mathematically indistinguishable from those modeling a vector-borne disease with more hosts or a multispecies model. While a sizeable literature exists on mathematical models of vectorborne diseases, and this class of pathogen provides a useful comparison for the type of behavior modeled here, no model captures the unintentional opportunism of zoonoses or incorporates selective pressure on viruses [7]. In this paper, we present a model which incorporates a pathogen mutation to a human-transmissible form in an intermediate host species, filling the gap noted by Lloyd et al. (2015) [5] with the introduction of a mathematical model that simulates the entire course of an emerging zoonosis. We model the adaptation of a zoonotic pathogen to a human-transmissible form in an intermediate host population and investigate whether the presence of pathogen adaptation in intermediate hosts creates or amplifies an epidemic among humans, with the goal of informing public health efforts to curb emerging infectious diseases. As a baseline and example, we use parameters that most closely reflect highly pathogenic avian influenza, a classical example of a zoonosis with an intermediate host [2] and one for which the most data is available. However, our model is intended to codify the idea of an intermediate host mathematically and therefore does not focus on a particular infectious disease. By changing its parameters, this model can be applied to study any zoonosis that passes through an intermediate host population, and its results are general to that theory.

We find that completely accounting for the spillover and interpopulation dynamics exhibited by emerging zoonoses links human populations to animal ones more deeply than previously thought. Zoonotic diseases are currently classified on the basis of their human-to-human transmissibility [6], which is assumed to be a critical distinction between pathogens with pandemic potential and pathogens that remain relatively rare [1, 3, 5]. The major distinction in zoonotic spread within humans is whether the pathogen can spread beyond its primary individual host to infect other humans: whether the basic reproduction number R0, the number of secondary cases produced by an index case in an entirely naive population, is greater than 1 [5]. This classification rests on a three-stage framework summarized by Lloyd et al. (2009), Morse et al. (2012), and Wolfe et al. (2005) [6, 28, 29]. Stage 1, pre-emergence, represents zoonoses circulating in an intermediate host but only capable of spillover into a dead-end human host, with no further transmission. Stage 2, localized emergence, defines diseases that can maintain stuttering chains in a human population with reinfection from animal hosts but are incapable of sustaining themselves in humans alone. Stage 3, pandemic emergence, classifies diseases that are fully adapted to humans and thus capable of causing outbreaks in our species alone [6, 28].

Here, we examine the process of pathogen evolution through these different stages to show that with a mutation to a human-transmissible strain in an intermediate host, a pathogen can maintain an endemic equilibrium in humans even in stage 1 (an R0 < 1 in the human compartment), refuting the transmissibility framework that currently forms the basis for classification of emerging zoonoses [6, 28, 29]. Since the epidemiological stratification of zoonotic diseases currently rests on their perceived threat to humans, the result that zoonotic epidemics can persist in human populations without achieving an R0 > 1 in humans sounds an alarm for current public health policy.

Methods

We link three species−a wild reservoir host, a domestic intermediate host, and humans−using a deterministic SIR model [25, 30, 31] with vital dynamics in each species compartment. These compartments are linked by transmission routes. An infected wild host can pass the disease to a susceptible domestic animal with transmission probability pd, and an infected domestic animal can pass the human-transmissible strain of the disease to a human with probability ph. Finally, the model incorporates the hallmark of an emerging zoonosis: the pathogen’s ability to mutate to a human-transmissible strain while circulating in a domestic host. To model this phenomenon, we introduce a category T (transmissible) for domestic animals in which the zoonosis has mutated to a human-transmissible form. This mutation happens at a rate μ in infected domestic animals, who then transition from the original infected category to the transmissible one and can infect other susceptible domestic animals with the new, human-transmissible strain. The full system of 10 ordinary differential equations is shown in Table 2, with subscripts indicating the species (wild, domestic, or human) to which the compartment belongs. Fig 1 provides a representation of the connections between populations, and Table 3 gives the definition of each variable.

Table 2. ODE systems of our model with three host compartments (species), composed of wild reservoir hosts, intermediate domestic animal hosts, and human hosts.

Wild dSw/dt = bwβwSwIwmwSw
dIw/dt = βwSwIwγwIwmwIw
dRw/dt = γwIwmw Rw
Domestic dSd/dt = bdβdSdIdpdSdIwβdSdTdmdSd
dId/dt = βdSdId + pdSdIwμIdγdIdmdId
dTd/dt = μId + βdSdTdγdTdmdTd
dRd/dt = γdId + γd TdmdRd
Humans dSh/dt = bhβhShIhphShTdmhSh
dIh/dt = βhShIh + phShTdγhIhmhIh
dRh/dt = γhIhmhRh

Fig 1. A representation of the model.

Fig 1

Model parameters are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Parameter definitions.

Si susceptible individuals of species i
Ii infected individuals of species i
Td intermediate hosts infected with human-transmissible strain
Ri recovered individuals of species i
βi transmission rate among species i
γi recovery rate among species i
bi birth rate among species i
mi natural mortality rate among species i
pd transmission rate from reservoir to intermediate hosts
ph transmission rate from intermediate hosts to humans
μ mutation rate of the pathogen in the intermediate host population

As this is an introductory model, we make several assumptions to clarify the essential dynamics of the system. Firstly, we equate the domestic animal recovery and transmission rates for both strains of the pathogen; the human-transmissible strain is different from the wild one only in that its transmission rate in humans is nonzero. We further assume that the population of each compartment is constant over the course of the simulation, with each species’ vital dynamics set at replacement rates, and thus calculate the proportion of susceptible, infected, and recovered animals in each species rather than the raw numbers present in each category. To maintain a focus on population biology and the potential for the spread of disease from infected individuals, we do not consider disease-induced mortality; our model is thus best suited to the first phase of diseases such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, which spread between hosts in days but can take weeks to kill. Finally, only domestic animals infected with the T strain can pass the disease to humans, although both strains circulate in the domestic population. The model does not account for coinfection in a domestic animal, since an individual infected with both strains is still capable of starting a human epidemic and is thus counted in the T category.

For each species, the model’s value at equilibrium is given by at most a quadratic equation, giving two possible equilibria in each compartment. At the disease-free equilibrium Ef, we have Si=bimi for each species i, while the endemic equilibrium Ee can be shown to satisfy the values shown in Table 4.

Table 4. The endemic equilibria values in each species compartment.

A proof of the uniqueness of the equilibrium value Sd* is in S1 Appendix.

Wild Sw*=mw+γwβw
Iw*=bw-mwSw*βwSw*
Rw*=γwIw*mw
Domestic Sd*<min{bd/(md+pdIw*),(γd+md)/βd}
Id*=1μ(γd+md-βdSd*)Td*
Td*=bd-mdSd*(γd+md)+1μ(γd+md)(γd+md-βdSd*)
dRd*=γd(Id*+Td*)md
Humans Sh*=βhbh+(mh+γh)(phTd*+md)-[βhbh+(mh+γh)(phTd*+md)]2-4βhmhbh(γh+mh)2βhmh
Ih*=bh-mhSh*γh+mh
Rh*=γhIh*mh

We use the next-generation method ([32] and [33]) to calculate R0 in a naive population, giving

R0=max{βwbwmw(γw+mw),βdbdmd(γd+md),βdbdmd(μ+γd+md),βhbhmh(γh+mh)}.

Note that this approach also gives a distinct reproduction number for each strain in each species: we can define the original pathogen’s reproduction number as R0w=βwbwmw(γw+mw) in the wild compartment and R0d=βdbdmd(γd+md), while that of the mutated strain is R0dm=βdbdmd(μ+γd+md) in the domestic compartment and R0h=βhbhmh(γh+mh) in humans. While a full analysis of the global stability of the endemic equilibrium requires the Routh-Hurwitz criteria applied to J(Ee), as well as Lyapunov functions specific to the 10-equation system in Table 2 [34], analyzing the eigenvalues of J(Ee) and J(Ef) give the local asymptotic stability for particular parameter values at those equilibria, and we have included examples below. We further note that while R0 retains its traditional value as a threshold for the stability of the disease-free equilibria, it is possible for the disease to vanish from upstream compartments while reaching an endemic equilibria in downstream ones. This behavior is a result of the intercompartment parameters pd, ph, and μ: since the model presented here is deterministic, any positive number of infections in wild animals seeds infections in domestic ones, which in turn transmit the pathogen to humans. Once established in all three species, the fate of the disease in each compartment depends on that species’ R0i. (It is thus possible that the wild species does not serve as a true ‘reservoir’ host, in which the pathogen perpetually circulates.) However, R0 as defined above measures the stability of the epidemic when considered as a multispecies disease. The model’s key innovations are linking three species together based on their proximity to humans and distinguishing between human-transmissible and non-human-transmissible strains of the pathogen, as no previous models simulate either intermediate hosts for zoonoses or a mutation to a human-transmissible form during the course of the epidemic in animals to study the entire range of an emerging infectious zoonosis.

Results

We provide numerical simulations to illustrate potential fates of a zoonotic epidemic in reservoir hosts, intermediate hosts, and humans. To provide a baseline for these simulations, we use parameters corresponding to highly pathogenic avian influenza (Table 5).

Table 5. Parameter values and sources for the model. Due to a lack of data for transmission parameters in wild animals, we assume βw, γw, bw, and mw to be equivalent to their counterparts in domestic animals.

The timesteps are given in days.

Parameter Value Source
initial Sw 0.5 [35]
initial Iw 0.5 [35]
pd 0.51 [35]
βd 0.89 [36]
γd 0.981 [36]
bd 1 assumed
md 1 assumed
ph 0.207 [37]
βh 0.078 [37]
γh 0.091 [37]
bh 0.0118 CDC
mh 0.009 CDC
μ 0.499 [35]

To elucidate the effects of the interspecies transmission parameters−pd, ph, and μ−we simulate an outbreak of avian influenza mutating from a low-pathogenic to a highly-pathogenic strain in an intermediate host. One of the best-known examples of a zoonosis with an intermediate host, avian influenza spreads from wild birds to domestic poultry to humans, a process for which there is some publicly available data. Seeding the model with the parameters shown in Table 5 (and assuming that βw = βd, γw = γd), we obtain the result shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. A simulation of low-pathogenic avian influenza mutating to high-pathogenic avian influenza.

Fig 2

Parameters are as shown in Table 5. While the epidemic dies out in the animal species, its R0 is 2.0871, allowing an epidemic to persist in humans.

This example−which uses the most data publicly available−shows that even if a pathogen’s R0 is less than one in both wild and intermediate hosts, it can still establish itself in the human population. Here, both strains of avian influenza fade in the animal populations while establishing an endemic equilibrium in the human population, with a maximum of 10.94% and an equilibrium of 7.65% of the population infected over a time span an order of magnitude larger than that necessary in the previous examples (t = 2000 days, not shown in the figure). Although the particular numbers will change with more exact disease parameters, these simulations illustrate that with nonzero transmission parameters, an initial infection in an upstream host species will spread to an endemic equilibrium in downstream ones even if the pathogen fails to establish itself in its animal hosts. This result indicates that human epidemics can occur even without correspondingly severe outbreaks in animals.

We further evaluate the effect of varying the interspecies transmission parameters pd, μ, and ph on the equilibrium values Id*, Td*, and Ih* after 3000 days, in addition to βd and βh for comparison. To produce the graphs in Fig 3, we vary the parameter in question from 0.01 to 5 (since values of 0 inevitably lead to a disease-free equilibrium in the human compartment), with a step size of 0.1, holding the other values constant at the endemic equilibrium parameters detailed above.

Fig 3. βh (right) and βd (left) are directly proportional to the proportion of humans infected with the mutated strain.

Fig 3

Similarly, we vary pd, μ, and ph to examine the effect of these parameters on the proportion of infected humans, finding that while increasing the mutation and intermediate host-human contact rate increases this proportion, increasing pd lowers it, as a larger contact rate between wild and domestic animals leads to a larger proportion of animals infected with the non-human-transmissible strain and thus unable to pass the disease to humans. Fig 4 shows heatmaps relating the interspecies transmission rates to the proportion of humans infected for four different values of μ. This result is robust even for a pathogen that cannot spread among humans; as shown in Fig 5, even decreasing βh to 0 still leads to an endemic equilibrium, with Ih*>0.

Fig 4. Graphing the equilibrium proportion of infected humans (Ih) against ph and pd for four different values of μ, with βh = 0.078.

Fig 4

Parameters are as in Table 5, with βw = βd = 0.118*5. While intracompartmental reproductive numbers vary between simulations, R0 for all four simulations is 2.2463.

Fig 5. Graphing the equilibrium proportion of infected humans (Ih) against ph and pd for four different values of μ, with βh = 0.

Fig 5

Parameters are as in Table 5, with βw = βd = 0.118*5. While intracompartmental reproductive numbers vary between simulations, R0 for all four simulations is 2.2463.

The importance of the interspecies transmission parameters is reflected in Fig 5, which show that even when the transmission rates of the pathogen in humans or domestic animals is set to 0, the disease can reach an endemic equilibrium in humans. Further, only by setting one or more of the interspecies transmission parameters μ, pd, ph to 0 can the model avoid an endemic equilibrium in humans. In particular, the pathogen can persist in humans even if βh = 0. The results of these numerical simulations show that varying pd and μ can change the relative prevalence of domestic animals infected with the wildtype and human-transmissible strains, which in turn can change the proportion of infected humans. Thus, the interspecies transmission parameters should be primary targets for intervention to lower the proportion of infected humans in this model.

While varying traditional epidemic parameters such as βi and γi can change the relative numbers of individuals in each compartment, we show that only pd, ph, and μ control the movement of a zoonotic epidemic between species, a result detailed by the simulations above. These results show that a zoonotic pathogen can establish itself in the human population as long as it is seeded with an initial infection in the wild compartment and pd, ph and μ are nonzero, even if the human-transmissible strain is incapable of being transmitted between humans.

Discussion

Since the spillover potential of the pathogen depends on pd, ph, and μ, we distinguish between intracompartment parameters−the transmission and recovery rates βi and γi, which describe interactions in a single species−and intercompartment parameters−the spillover and mutation probabilities pd, ph, and μ−which govern interactions between members of two species. We illustrate through several numerical examples that the intercompartmental parameters, and the initial proportion of infected wild animals, have the potential to alter the global dynamics of the three-species system to a disease-free equilibrium. Changing intracompartmental paramenters only changes the relative proportions of each type of individual present at an equilibrium, not the stability of the equilibria, while modifying the values of intercompartmental parameters can change the global behavior of the pathogen. Isolating these parameters thus provides suggestions for possible interventions. In particular, while many parameters of the model can be changed by human interventions, the only effective route for eliminating the possibility of a zoonotic epidemic in humans is to eliminate contact between species or the possibility of pathogen mutation, an impossible requirement in any real system.

Reflecting the lack of data for zoonoses over their entire range of species, the sources used for the parameters in Table 5 reflect different strains of avian influenza. While the variety and inconsistency of these sources reflects the need for more data and research into the actual effects of particular zoonoses [3538]), and it is crucial for public health interventions based on a mathematical model to know the accuracy of each parameter, their specific values are relatively unimportant for the theoretical results presented here, as the analysis of the system holds for all parameter values. The lack of large, publicly available data sets, especially regarding the prevalence of zoonotic infections in wild and domestic animals and the values for pd, ph, and μ, limits our ability to refine any model [57], and so gathering such data should form a key component of future efforts.

This complete simulation of an emerging zoonosis shows that even in cases where the disease dies out in the wild compartment and would fail without an external force of infection in the domestic one, it can establish an endemic equilibrium in humans. Further, this result holds even if βh = 0, reflecting a pathogen in Stage 1 of the traditional categorization for zoonoses that would not be deemed a pandemic threat under that framework and suggesting that the threat posed by zoonoses is more severe than previously assumed. This result indicates that even the slightest possibility of contact between species or selection for a pathogen more suited to humans raises pd, ph, or μ above 0 and thus can lead to an endemic infection in humans. While these factors may be negligible in real populations, our results that the threat of an emerging zoonosis cannot be completely erased even with extraordinarily effective interventions mathematically confirm the focus on prioritizing zoonoses and offer a warning for public health officials.

This paper introduces a model capable of replicating all stages of the emergence of a zoonosis with an intermediate host; given adequate data, future research could adapt this model to any specific emerging zoonosis. To keep this work at a preliminary level and to maximize its use in more specialized contexts, we have not considered further modifications to the SIR prototype model such as loss of immunity (SIRS) or exposure time (SEIR), or possible variation patterns in the number of infected reservoir hosts, such as seasonal migration. In particular, the model incorporates neither pathogen virulence in new host species nor logistic growth limits on populations. It is thus best suited to a pathogen that does not cause significant host mortality, and future research provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the complexities arising in more virulent diseases. Future models could also incorporate backwards transmission to wild animals, direct interactions between humans and wild reservoirs, and interactions between different pathogens in an intermediate host [6]. The effect of different transmission rates for the two strains circulating in the intermediate host, as well as the relaxation of the assumption of mass action in the human compartment, also provide areas for future study. Finally, we were unable to investigate disease dynamics in individual hosts, with little data regarding the effect of different expressions of pathogen genotypes or animal superspreaders on transmissibility in humans [6]. As this effect is abstracted by our parameter μ, delving deeper into individual-host pathogen dynamics such as cellular entry and replication [7] has the potential to improve our model. No emerging infected disease has been predicted before infecting humans [28], although progress is being made on identifying disease ‘hotspots’ [39], and this inability reinforces the importance of studying the factors that lead to successful spillover and define transmission rates between species [28].

This research suggests future avenues of exploration for both researchers and policymakers seeking to understand and control the spread of an emerging infectious zoonosis, and proves that interspecies connections are critical to controlling and understanding the effect of an emerging zoonosis on human populations. We show that with nonzero transmission parameters and an initial population of infected wild animals, a pathogen can fail to achieve traditional markers of success, such as stage 3 transmissibility, and still maintain an endemic equilibrium in the human population. This concerning result for public health offers areas in which policy rather than medical interventions can be more effective in controlling disease.

Conclusion

We establish that this model of the entire path of an emerging infectious zoonosis has one unique disease-free equilibrium and one endemic equilibrium, and that the stability of these points depends on pd, ph, and μ, the contact probabilities between species and the pathogen’s rate of mutation. Accurately identifying and describing the dynamics of a pathogen circulating in wild and domestic animals provides an invaluable opportunity to avoid risk to humans [28], and can be used to guide public health interventions for emerging zoonotic diseases.

With the ability to study the emergence of a zoonosis with an intermediate host, first quantified by the model introduced here, scientists and policymakers have a more refined tool with which to study and confront the emergence of a new pandemic into the human population. To our knowledge, this is the first model that accounts for the entire course−from infected wild animals, through mutation in an intermediate host, to an endemic equilibrium in humans−of the type of zoonotic pathogen the World Health Organization ranks in the highest tier of priorities for research and development, and so provides a significant step forward in its study.

Our results primarily offer a warning to public health officials: without drastic interventions to lower interspecies interactions or pathogen mutation rates, zoonoses with the capacity to mutate in a human-adjacent intermediate host can spread to humans even if they are not viable in a human population alone. More fundamentally to the field of mathematical epidemiology, this result confirms previously held beliefs−unquantified until now−about the philosophical importance of zoonoses to humanity. It is a pillar of the movement variously called “global”, “one”, or “planetary health” that human populations cannot isolate themselves from changes that affect other species with interventions targeting only humans. By mathematically linking the progress of a zoonotic epidemic to parameters governing interactions between species, this model shows that the framework of an interconnected human and natural world that implicitly underlies much of the analysis in this field in the last twenty years agrees with the mathematics of infectious disease, quantifying and confirming a widespread belief in global health.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix

(PDF)

S1 File

(ZIP)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1. Karesh WB, Dobson A, Lloyd-Smith JO, Lubroth J, Dixon MA, Bennett M, et al. Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories. The Lancet. 2012;380(9857):1936–1945. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61678-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife–threats to biodiversity and human health. Science. 2000;287(5452):443–449. 10.1126/science.287.5452.443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Woolhouse ME, Gowtage-Sequeria S. Host range and emerging and reemerging pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005;11(12):1842 10.3201/eid1112.050997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. List of Blueprint priority diseases; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/en/.
  • 5. Lloyd-Smith JO, Funk S, McLean AR, Riley S, Wood JL. Nine challenges in modelling the emergence of novel pathogens. Epidemics. 2015;10:35–39. 10.1016/j.epidem.2014.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lloyd-Smith JO, George D, Pepin KM, Pitzer VE, Pulliam JR, Dobson AP, et al. Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface. Science. 2009;326(5958):1362–1367. 10.1126/science.1177345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Allen L, Brown V, Jonsson C, Klein SL, Laverty S, Magwedere K, et al. Mathematical modeling of viral zoonoses in wildlife. Natural Resource Modeling. 2012;25(1):5–51. 10.1111/j.1939-7445.2011.00104.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Richard M, Graaf Md, Herfst S. Avian influenza A viruses: from zoonosis to pandemic. Future Virology. 2014;9(5):513–524. 10.2217/fvl.14.30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Neumann G, Noda T, Kawaoka Y. Emergence and pandemic potential of swine-origin H1N1 influenza virus. Nature. 2009;459(7249):931 10.1038/nature08157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Ma W, Lager K, Vincent A, Janke B, Gramer M, Richt J. The role of swine in the generation of novel influenza viruses. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2009;56(6-7):326–337. 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01217.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Cunningham AA, Daszak P, Wood JL. One Health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: two decades of progress? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2017;372(1725):20160167 10.1098/rstb.2016.0167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Sharma V, Kaushik S, Kumar R, Yadav JP, Kaushik S. Emerging trends of Nipah virus: A review. Reviews in Medical Virology. 2019;29(1):e2010 10.1002/rmv.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Pulliam JR, Epstein JH, Dushoff J, Rahman SA, Bunning M, Jamaluddin AA, et al. Agricultural intensification, priming for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal bat-borne zoonosis. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2011; 9(66):89–101. 10.1098/rsif.2011.0223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Childs ML, Nova N, Colvin J, Mordecai EA. Mosquito and primate ecology predict human risk of yellow fever virus spillover in Brazil. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2019; 374(1782):20180335 10.1098/rstb.2018.0335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Washburne AD, Crowley DE, Becker DJ, Manlove KR, Childs ML, Plowright RK. Percolation models of pathogen spillover. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2019; 374(1782):20180331 10.1098/rstb.2018.0331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Iwami S, Takeuchi Y, Liu X. Avian–human influenza epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences. 2007;207(1):1–25. 10.1016/j.mbs.2006.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Gumel AB. Global dynamics of a two-strain avian influenza model. International Journal of Computer Mathematics. 2009;86(1):85–108. 10.1080/00207160701769625 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, et al. Pathways to zoonotic spillover, Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2017;15(8):502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Kim KI, Lin Z, Zhang L. Avian-human influenza epidemic model with diffusion. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications. 2010;11(1):313–322. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2008.11.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Vandegrift KJ, Sokolow SH, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM. Ecology of avian influenza viruses in a changing world. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;1195(1):113–128. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05451.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Ito T, Goto H, Yamamoto E, Tanaka H, Takeuchi M, Kuwayama M, et al. Generation of a highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus from an avirulent field isolate by passaging in chickens. Journal of Virology. 2001;75(9):4439–4443. 10.1128/JVI.75.9.4439-4443.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. de Wit E, Munster VJ. MERS-CoV: the intermediate host identified? The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2013;13(10):827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Goodwin R, Schley D, Lai KM, Ceddia GM, Barnett J, Cook N. Interdisciplinary approaches to zoonotic disease. Infectious Disease Reports. 2012;4(2). 10.4081/idr.2012.e37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu Ping, Jiang Jing-Zhe, Hua Yan, Wang Xiaohu, Hou Fanghui, Wan Xiu-Feng, et al. Are pangolins the intermediate host of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)? PLoS Pathogens.2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 25. Kermack WO, McKendrick AG. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. 1927;115(772):700–721. [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Andraud M, Hens N, Marais C, Beutels P. Dynamic epidemiological models for dengue transmission: a systematic review of structural approaches. PloS One. 2012;7(11):e49085 10.1371/journal.pone.0049085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Hussaini N, Okuneye K, Gumel AB. Mathematical analysis of a model for zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis. Infectious Disease Modelling. 2017;2(4):455–474. 10.1016/j.idm.2017.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Morse SS, Mazet JA, Woolhouse M, Parrish CR, Carroll D, Karesh WB, et al. Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis. The Lancet. 2012;380(9857):1956–1965. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61684-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Wolfe ND, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM, Burke DS. Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction of zoonotic disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005;11(12):1822 10.3201/eid1112.040789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kermack WO, McKendrick AG. Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. II.—The problem of endemicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. 1932;138(834):55–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Kermack WO, McKendrick AG. Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. III.—Further studies of the problem of endemicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. 1933;141(843):94–122. [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Diekmann O, Heesterbeek J, Roberts MG. The construction of next-generation matrices for compartmental epidemic models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2009;7(47):873–885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Van den Driessche P, Watmough J. Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. Mathematical Biosciences. 2002;180(1-2):29–48. 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Shuai Zhisheng, van den Driessche Pauline. Global stability of infectious disease models using Lyapunov functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 2013;73(4):1513–1532. 10.1137/120876642 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Singh M, Toribio JA, Scott AB, Groves P, Barnes B, Glass K, et al. Assessing the probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in commercial Australian poultry operations using an expert opinion elicitation. PloS One. 2018;13(3):e0193730 10.1371/journal.pone.0193730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Henaux V, Samuel MD, Bunck CM. Model-based evaluation of highly and low pathogenic avian influenza dynamics in wild birds. PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e10997 10.1371/journal.pone.0010997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Xiao Y, Sun X, Tang S, Wu J. Transmission potential of the novel avian influenza A (H7N9) infection in mainland China. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2014;352:1–5. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.02.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Bett B, Henning J, Abdu P, Okike I, Poole J, Young J, et al. Transmission Rate and Reproductive Number of the H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus During the December 2005–July 2008 Epidemic in Nigeria. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2014;61(1):60–68. 10.1111/tbed.12003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Daszak P. Anatomy of a pandemic. The Lancet. 2012;380(9857):1883–1884. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61887-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Chris T Bauch

22 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-34625

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Royce,

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 by the two reviewers during the review process. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors here develop a simple ODE model of pathogen spillover from a wildlife reservoir to an intermediate host to a human. The novelty of the approach lies in considering mutation within the intermediate host and the effects this has on pathogen invasion and equilibrium prevalence. The model is generally sound and the analytic results are robust. My primary comments concern better framing the study within the recent literature, the sensitivity of the model to some alternative structure, and more generally restricting the paper to the key results and information. These comments are explained below.

1) The authors frame this paper around the lack of a mathematical framework for zoonotic spillover that considers the processes occurring from the reservoir to the recipient (human) host (e.g., L19, L33). Unfortunately, this ignores some foundational work over the past few years that have developed similar (but different) modeling approaches. For example, Plowright et al. 2017 traces spillover from reservoir disease dynamics to establishment in a recipient host, Childs et al. 2019 traces the dynamics of yellow fever from reservoirs to human epidemics, Washburne et al. 2019 develop a percolation model of spillover from donor to recipient hosts, and Faust et al. 20177 develop an explicit mathematical model of spillover from wildlife to humans in the context of land conversion. I think the authors should review the recent literature more thoroughly and identify the novel gap their study addresses. It is fine to say that although recent modeling efforts have addressed the spillover process from reservoir to recipient hosts, the role of intermediate hosts as amplifiers or mutators of a pathogen (a defining part of zoonotic spillover) remains underdeveloped and lacks a strong theoretical foundation.

2) The authors have understandably kept their model relatively simple to facilitate generalizable insights (e.g., as described in L593). However, I do have a concern about two components of the model, which are independent of the general infection process. First, the authors assume a constant birth rate b per each host species, but density-dependent birth (i.e., logistic growth) seems far more appropriate than exponential growth. I suggest the authors use logistic growth of each host instead (e.g., see Faust et al. 2017). Second, the authors assume that the pathogen is not virulent (no disease-induced mortality) in either the wild host, intermediate host, or human host, which does not seem to reflect the actual context of many zoonoses (e.g., mortality from AIV in poultry and humans, mortality from Nipah virus in pigs and humans, mortality of horses and humans from Hendra virus). Are your results sensitive to including disease-induced mortality alongside the baseline mortality per host?

3) The authors also conduct a local sensitivity analysis, in which pd, ph, and mu are varied to observe effects on the equilibria infection prevalences per host. Although the local analysis seems fine (i.e., holding all other parameters constant), I think the results could be made more robust by systematically varying all combinations of pd and ph for a few values of mu (e.g., heat maps with pd and ph as the axes, prevalence as the surface, for 3-4 different values of mu to represent different degrees of mutation). This could better reflect where in parameter space human prevalence is maximized. Alternatively, the authors could use a Latin hypercube sampling approach to vary all these parameters simultaneously.

4) As a more editorial note, I think the manuscript would benefit from a bit more selectivity in text and results. In particular, I found the Introduction (L1-159) to be rather long, and much of the information could be condensed into several clear paragraphs (e.g., introduce zoonoses and spillover, discuss the role of intermediate hosts, highlight previous work on mutation, describe the aims of the model). I also think the manuscript would be easier to follow if the authors adopted the more traditional manuscript format of Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Lastly, given that there are 13 figures in the manuscript, I suggest the authors consider what are the key results to show the reader, include those key figures (or combine figures into multi-panel figures), and move other results to the supplement. This would help streamline the MS.

5) As a minor point, the authors often use “zoonotic disease” when I think they mean “zoonotic pathogen”. Pathogens are what is being transmitted between hosts (or mutated within a host), rather than the disease manifestation.

6) In several parts of the methods, the authors include some additional description of the methods used that, at times, distract from the main text. For example, the discussion of dengue (L174-179) seems out of place here and distracts from the methods being discussed. Similarly, the discussion of different applications of the next-generation matrix technique (L248-252) distract from the main methods. It’s OK to simply state that you used the next-generation matrix method to derive R0 and leave it at that.

7) I’m not sure Table 5 and 6 are necessary, given the corresponding figures. The actual numerical results here will vary based on other parameter values (e.g., beta, b, mu), so the tables not very informative when we can just view the graphs.

8) What software did the authors use for visualizing analytic results and running numerical simulations? Note that a condition of publication in PLoS ONE is to make underlying data fully available without restriction. The authors should upload the code used to generate results (Matlab, R, etc) as a supplemental file.

Reviewer #2: My review is uploaded as an attachment.

A mathematical model for a zoonosis is studied and applied to avian influenza. The model consists of three different

populations, wild reservoir, intermediate domestic animals, and humans. The infection is spread from the wild to

intermediate to humans. Spread to humans only occurs after a mutation of the virus in the intermediate host. The

introduction is well written and the concept is interesting.

Unfortunately, the analysis is simplistic and incorrect. As written it is difficult to follow what is shown in the large number

of Figures 4-13 in the simulations. The reproductive numbers for each population are not provided. The model is closely

related to a multigroup model with two types of infection in the intermediate group.

The value of R_0 can be calculated at the disease-free equilibrium (dfe) by applying Theorem 2 in [37] as in lines 390-

395. In addition, if the conditions (A1) and (A5) hold in [37], then Theorem 2 can be applied to show that the dfe is

locally asymptotically stable. Theorems 1-5 and the lemmas are not required. The analyses for each population, Wild,

Domestic, and Human, are trivial and are not needed when considering the entire system. It is nontrivial to show that

the endemic equilibrium E_e is locally stable. This requires the Routh-Hurwitz criteria applied to the Jacobian matrix

evaluated at E_e for all 10 differential equations. Therefore, Theorem 6 is incorrect. Alternately given specific parameter

values the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix can be computed

In several figures, either the wild or domestic animals approach the dfe. Why? The term ``reservoir" implies that the

basic reproductive number beta_wb_w/(m_w(gamma_w+m_w))>1 (typo in (14)). Methods for parameter sensitivity,

such as Latin hypercube sampling and partial rank correlation coefficient, may be useful. The parameters p_d, \\mu, and

p_h are important, as they connect the three populations.

The differential equations can be written in the text, rather than in a Table. There are three reproductive numbers, one

for each population. A suggestion is to define R_0 in (14) as follows:

R_0=max{R_0^w, R_0^d, R_0^h}.

Then the three reproductive numbers can be given for the figures.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PLOS_ONE_2020.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237780.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Apr 2020

We have incorporated ideas from Plowright et al. 2017, Childs et al. 2019, and Washburne et al. 2019. Per Faust et al. 2017, we have included a suggestion to incorporate logistic growth of each host in future research, but our deterministic model is not sensitive to disease-induced mortality (since, as noted in the Appendix, any infection in an upstream host will spill over to downstream ones even if the epidemic dies out among that particular species). A stochastic model, which we suggest as another possible extension of our work, may retain the sensitivity to disease-induced mortality that this model lacks; however, this model was intended to provide a preliminary basis for quantitative investigation of zoonoses with intermediate hosts, and so the question of the effects of disease-induced mortality is beyond the scope of the current paper. We have incorporated Figures 4 and 5, heat maps with ph and pd as the axes and Ih as the surface, for four values of mu. We performed this experiment for beta_h = 0.078 and for beta_h = 0. We have shortened the introduction to 4 paragraphs and conformed to a more traditional manuscript format, following the suggested structure. Further, we have combined the original figures into 5 final versions, consolidating our findings. We have revised our description of zoonotic pathogens to match the behavior being discussed in each instance. We have deleted the discussions of dengue (L174-179) and of applications (L248-252), as well as Tables 5 and 6, and moved a mathematical proof of our results to an appendix. Finally, we have included the Matlab code used to produce our results as a supplemental file.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Chris T Bauch

16 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34625R1

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Royce,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 31 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please resubmit this paper with a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewer comments, as requested in the previous decision letter.

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

[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 be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237780.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 May 2020

Journal Requirements: we have ensured that the figures are properly labeled and that the manuscript complies with the PLoS ONE Latex template. We have deleted the supplementary writing and included the relevant analysis in the Methods section, and have ensured that our supplementary code complies with formatting requirements.

Reviewer 1:We have incorporated ideas from Plowright et al. 2017, Childs et al. 2019, and Washburne et al. 2019, highlighting the differences between the conceptual models of spillover dynamics that do not include disease dynamics in nonhuman species and our model, which explicitly accounts for disease mutation in a nonhuman host. Per Faust et al. 2017, we have included a suggestion to incorporate logistic growth of each host in future research, but our deterministic model is not sensitive to disease-induced mortality. Our goal is to provide a conceptual framework for intermediate host transmission in many contexts, and we have thus kept the simpler assumption of constant birth and death rates in order to make the model accessible in many different contexts. A stochastic model, which we suggest as another possible extension of our work, may retain the sensitivity to disease-induced mortality that this model lacks; however, this model was intended to provide a preliminary basis for quantitative investigation of zoonoses with intermediate hosts, and so the question of the effects of disease-induced mortality is beyond the scope of the current paper. We have incorporated Figures 4 and 5, heat maps with p_h and p_d as the axes and I_h as the surface, for four values of mu, giving a more complete explanation of where in parameter space the proportion of infected humans is maximized. Further, we performed this experiment for two values of beta_h, distinguishing between a human-to-human transmissible pathogen and one that cannot be transmitted among humans. We have shortened the introduction to 4 paragraphs and conformed to a more traditional manuscript format, following the suggested structure. Further, we have combined the original figures into 5 final versions, consolidating our findings. We have revised our description of zoonotic pathogens to match the behavior being discussed in each instance. We have deleted the discussions of dengue (L174-179) and of applications (L248-252), and moved a mathematical proof of our results to an appendix. We have deleted Tables 5 and 6, replacing them with the heatmaps described above. We have included the Matlab code used to produce our results as a supplemental file.

Reviewer 2:We have included a formula for R0 in the model and noted the similarities to multigroup models, as well as including code to calculate R0 given specific parameter values. In addition, we have included a reference to the Routh-Hurwitz criteria to ensure completeness of the analysis. We have corrected the typo in (14) and clarified the importance of p_d, p_h, and mu. While we considered Latin hypercube sampling, in particular, the aim of this paper is to introduce a new type of model, with the goal of prompting further research, and we have thus kept the analysis as simple as possible. We have clarified (lines 161-181) the distinction between intracompartmental reproductive numbers and the global reproductive number, explaining why the pathogen can fade in animal species while reaching an endemic equilibrium in humans. We have also noted that this behavior may cause the wild species not to be a 'reservoir host' in the true sense of the term (line 176). While we have kept the differential equations in a table, following conventions in mathematical biology, we have explicitly stated R0 on line 160 and given a numerical R0 for each of the figures.

We thank the reviewers for their feedback.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers (2).pdf

Decision Letter 2

Chris T Bauch

15 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-34625R2

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Royce,

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

Please address the latest round of comments of the reviewers. Both reviewers appreciated that significant changes had been made, but felt that the manuscript would benefit significantly from a few more changes. Especially, reviewer #1 felt that the revised manuscript should be more clear that the model only applies to cases where there is no mortality from pathogen virulence, and that reviewer also noted that some requested changes from the first round of review had not been implemented yet.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I think the authors have done a generally nice job re-contextualizing their study in the recent literature, and the new sensitivity analyses are helpful to more thoroughly explore parameter space. However, I do have remaining concerns.

I still don't quite agree about ignoring logistic growth or pathogen virulence. Especially for the latter, many zoonotic pathogens are likely avirulent in the reservoir but virulent in the intermediate host and humans (e.g., Nipah virus, Ebola virus, etc). The authors note “Per Faust et al. 2017, we have included a suggestion to incorporate logistic growth of each host in future research, but our deterministic model is not sensitive to disease-induced mortality”, but I don’t see where this information was included in the revision. If the authors feel strongly that an additional mortality term should not be added, then I think they need to discuss the kinds of host-pathogen systems for which their assumptions (exponential growth, avirulence) are best met. For example, avian influenza causes high mortality in poultry (and of course humans; L101). This point could be added in the current section on model assumptions (L140-153).

L21: “in particular, there is no unifying mathematical theory or set of principles that can be used to frame discussions of zoonotic spillovers” Although the authors now better describe more recent theoretical work on pathogen spillover, I think statements such as these do not reflect the field and need to be toned down.

L46: Perhaps reword to “Table 1…shows notable case studies of zoonoses with domesticated species as intermediate hosts”

L75: This statement isn’t entirely accurate. Although SIR models of multi-host pathogens are often applied to vector-borne diseases, I wouldn’t say this captures the majority of such models.

Table 5: What are the units of time in the parameterization here?

Discussion: I was surprised to see no discussion of non-exponential growth or virulence here, given earlier comments.

Figure 2: The figure would be easier to read if the Y axis was consistent across panels (zero to 1, rather than -0.2 to 1.2 for some panels). Please label the X axis (e.g., “time in years”).

Figure 3: Labeling the axes in parameter names, in addition to the symbols, would be helpful (e.g., transmission rate among humans, Bh). Note that there is no need to add a key in this figure (“infected”), because that is implied by the Y axis. It would also be worth clarifying that altering betah has essentially no impact on Ih, given that Y ranges from 0.22544 to 0.22554. The authors might consider making the Y axes the same in both figures to drive this point home.

Figure 4 and 5: These figures are nice in concept but are unfortunately somewhat difficult to read. Simplifying the X and Y axes to only show 5-6 evenly spaced values would be helpful. The colorbars also need keys / titles.

Reviewer #2: Please see the attachment at the end of this letter. It contains a pdf file of all of my suggestions for revision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review_PONE_2020.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237780.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


27 Jul 2020

We have clarified that the revised model applies only to diseases without mortality from pathogen virulence, and clarified Figures 2-5. In addition, we have implemented the revisions as described in the Response to Reviewers and edited the references to remove unused papers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 3

Chris T Bauch

30 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-34625R3

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Royce,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.  We feel that you have addressed the reviewer comments in a satisfactory manner, but there remain a few minor issues that should be addressed before it meets PLOS ONE publication criteria. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points.

1) lines 166-168: "our model is thus best suited to the first phase of diseases such as Covid-19 or Ebola, which spread between hosts in days but can take weeks to kill." -- even COVID-19 and ebola can kill hosts very quickly, in a matter of days, so I don't think this is the best example to use.  Instead, the authors should mention the example of 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, which was remarkably avirulent.  The authors should also revise line 329 accordingly. 

2) line 327: " In particular, as noted during revisions, the model incorporates neither pathogen virulence in new host species nor logistic growth limits on 3populations-- the authors should remove the reference to paper revisions, since papers do not normally make reference to their own review process. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237780.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


31 Jul 2020

I have implemented the two changes suggested (replacing a reference to Covid-19 and Ebola with 2009 pandemic influenza as an example of a zoonosis with notable avirulence in new host species and removing a reference to the revision process), in addition to revising Table 1 so that the sources are cited in numerical order.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 4

Chris T Bauch

4 Aug 2020

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

PONE-D-19-34625R4

Dear Dr. Royce,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Chris T. Bauch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Chris T Bauch

7 Aug 2020

PONE-D-19-34625R4

Mathematically modeling spillovers of an emerging infectious zoonosis with an intermediate host

Dear Dr. Royce:

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

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

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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

Professor Chris T. Bauch

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 Appendix

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_PLOS_ONE_2020.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers (2).pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review_PONE_2020.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES