Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0255054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255054

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

Trang Nguyen Hoa 1, Saif Ullah Munshi 2, Khanh Nguyen Ngoc 1, Chau Le Ngoc 1, Thanh Tran Thi Thanh 1, Tahmina Akther 2, Shahina Tabassum 2, Nilufa Parvin 3, Stephen Baker 4, Motiur Rahman 1,5,*
Editor: Pierre Roques6
PMCID: PMC8297744  PMID: 34293039

Abstract

Background

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is endemic in Bangladesh and there are occasional outbreaks. The molecular characteristics and pathogenesis of endemic and outbreak HEV strains are poorly understood. We compared the genetic relatedness and virulence associated mutations of endemic HEV strains with outbreak strains.

Methods

We analyzed systematically collected serum samples from HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive patients attended at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka from August 2013 to June 2015. HEV RNA positive samples were subjected to whole genome sequencing. Genotype and subtype of the strains were determined by phylogenetic analysis. Virulence associated mutations e.g. acute viral hepatitis (AVH), fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), chronic hepatitis, ribavirin treatment failure (RTF), B and T cell neutralization epitopes were determined.

Results

92 HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody positive plasma samples (43 in 2013–2014 and 49 in 2014–2015) were studied. 77.1% (70/92) of the samples were HEV RNA positive. A 279 bp open reading frame (ORF) 2 and ORF 3 sequence was obtained from 54.2% (38/70) of the strains. Of these 38 strains, whole genome sequence (WGS) was obtained from 21 strains. In phylogenetic analysis of 38 (279 bp) sequence all HEV sequences belonged to genotype 1 and subtype 1a. Further phylogenetic analysis of 21 HEV WGS, Bangladeshi HEV sequences clustered with genotype 1a sequences from neighboring countries. Within genotype 1a cluster, Bangladesh HEV strains formed a separate cluster with the 2010 HEV outbreak strains from northern Bangladesh. 80.9 to 100% of the strains had A317T, T735I, L1120I, L1110F, P259S, V1479I, G1634K mutations associates AVH, FHF and RTF. Mutations in T cell recognition epitope T3, T5, T7 was observed in 76.1%, 100% and 100% of the strains respectively.

Conclusion

Strains of HEV genotype 1a are dominant in Bangladesh and are associated with endemic and outbreak of HEV infection. HEV isolates in Bangladesh have high prevalence of virulence associated mutations and mutation which alters antigenicity to B and T cell epitopes.

Introduction

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection account for 20 million infections globally per year, 3.3 million of these are symptomatic, and associated with 57,000 deaths [1,2]. The principal burden of HEV disease is in low-middle income countries (LMICs); an estimated 2 billion people live in regions where HEV is endemic [3]. The clinical outcome of HEV infection is varied and largely dependent the genotype of the infecting virus and host factors. The overwhelming majority of HEV infections are self-limiting, but infections in pregnant women are associated with high mortality [4].

HEV is a non-enveloped, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus, and a member of the family Hepeviridae [5]. The HEV genome is 7.2 kb and is comprised of a short 5’ untranslated region (UTR), three open reading frames (ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3), and a 3’ UTR, followed by a poly A tail [6]. ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3 encode the nonstructural protein, the viral capsid protein, and a phosphorylated protein, respectively [7,8]. HEV from human, animals, and primates are currently divided into eight genotypes, which includes four genotypes known to cause disease in humans (genotype 1, 2, 3 and 4). These four genotypes are further subdivided into 24 subtypes (genotype 1 (n = 5), 2 (n = 2), 3 (n = 10), and 4 (n = 7)) and a single serotype [5,9].

The various HEV genotypes have a distinct geographic distribution, clinical presentation, and mode of transmission. Genotypes 1 and 2 are found only in humans and are responsible for most HEV cases in Asian LMICs (Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal). Genotype 2 is more commonly identified in Latin America and Africa [10]. These genotypes are transmitted fecal-orally, are associated with contaminated water, and typically cause acute infection. Alternatively, genotypes 3 and 4 circulate in various animals (pigs, wild boar, and deer) and are the main cause of HEV infection in high-income countries [1012]. Genotype 3 is chiefly identified in Europe; genotype 4 is mainly found in more affluent Asian countries including China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Japan. These genotypes are associated with infection via cross-species transmission often through the consumption of contaminated food [1214].

The pathogenesis of HEV is poorly understood, although a number of genetic loci have been found to be associated with disease progression. There are several mutations in the HEV genome that have been found to be associated with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), acute viral hepatitis (AVH), and chronic hepatitis. Additionally, further mutations correlating with ribavirin treatment failure, and B and T cell epitope neutralization have been reported [1517]. It has been further suggested that these B and T cell epitope mutations are deleterious and decrease the antigenicity of HEV; the mutated epitopes result in variants that evade host B and T recognition [8,18,19].

Bangladesh has a high HEV burden, where small outbreaks are common. The prevalence of HEV antibody among the general population is 22%-60% [2022]; the incidence of HEV seroconversion is 40 per 1,000 people per year in rural settings [21]. Drinking municipal tap water, outdoor employment, recent urban travel, and recent contact with a patient with jaundice have been identified as HEV infection risk factors [21,23]. In 2008–2009 a HEV outbreak associated with 4,521 infections and 17 deaths was reported near the capital Dhaka [23]. In 2010 a similar outbreak with 200 hospitalization has been reported in northeast city Rajshahi [22]. Despite the significance of HEV in Bangladesh there has been limited characterization of the HEV circulating in this highly endemic country. Here, we conducted a longitudinal study to identify patients infected with HEV in Bangladesh to characterize the infecting viruses and assess the composition of mutations that may associate with a more severe disease progression.

Materials and methods

Study design and population

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2013 to June 2015 at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) in Dhaka. Patients attending at the virology department of BSMMU with a HEV IgM test request and tested positive were eligible for enrollment. Systematically selected (first four HEV IgM ELISA (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) positive patients each month) leftover samples were stored at -86°C. Plasma samples were unlinked with patient data be replacing the patient ID with a study ID. Samples were shipped to Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU), Vietnam for further analysis. The study was approved by the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) ethical review committee (Approval No. BSMMU/2013/3027).

Amplification and sequencing of HEV

HEV IgM positive samples were screened for HEV RNA using quantitative PCR (qPCR) [24]. Total viral RNA was extracted from 140ul of plasma using a MagNa pure viral RNA extraction kit (Roche Diagnostics, Basel). RNA was reverse transcribed into cDNA using superscript III reverse transcriptase. cDNA from the qPCR positive samples were used for amplification of the HEV genome by nested PCR. Degenerate oligonucleotide primers were designed to amplify 450–600 bp overlapping fragments to cover the entire HEV genome (S1 File). Additionally, where necessary the 5’ and 3’ cDNA ends were amplified using RACE PCR as previously described [25]. When required a primer walking strategy was implemented to close gaps in the genome sequences. PCR amplicons were visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis and purified using the QIAamp PCR purification kit (QIAgen, Germany). Purified amplicons were sequenced in both directions using an Applied Biosystem 3130XL Genetic Analyzer. The entire genome sequences (amplified by primer set 1 to 20 (S1 File)) and a 279bp region (position 5972–6319 of GenBank accession no M73218) of ORF2 and ORF3 (part of the `440 bp fragment amplified by primer set 20 (S1 File)) were used for final analysis [26].

Genome assembly and phylogenetics

To construct the HEV whole genome sequences the overlapping sequences from the PCR amplicons were aligned and a consensus sequence was generated. Additionally, 109 HEV genome sequences representing all genotypes and subtypes including 20 HEV genotype 1 sequences from Asia were accessed from GenBank (S2 File). Sequences generated during this study and the reference sequences were subjected to phylogenetic analysis using Geneious 8.0.5 software [27]. The entire genome sequences and a 279bp fragment of ORF2 and ORF3 were aligned using MUSCLE alignment program within Geneious [28]. Sequence alignments were subjected to Jmodel test to identify the best model for phylogenetic analysis [29]. The suggested nucleotide substitution model (GTR+G+I) was used for phylogenetic analysis in RAxML v7.2.8 (available in Geneious package). To confirm the reliability of phylogenetic tree, bootstrap resampling and reconstruction were repeated on 500 occasions.

Phylogenetic analysis of the whole genome sequences was performed in a two-step process. Firstly, 21 whole genome sequences from the present study and 109 existing genome sequences (including two outbreak sequences from Bangladesh) were analyzed. Secondly, 20 genotype 1a genome sequences from Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Myanmar) and 21 genotype 1a HEV genome sequences from the present study were analyzed. All sequences were submitted to GenBank. Accession no; (MK005535 to MK005551) for the ORF2-3 region, and (MH991993 to MH992013) for the whole genome sequences.

Virulence associated mutation analysis

Known mutations associated with i) FHF, ii) AVR, iii) chronic hepatitis, iv) ribavirin treatment failure, and v) B and T (MHC I and II) cell epitope neutralization were identified in 21 HEV WGS. These mutations were: F179S, A317T, T735I, L1110F, V1120I, F1439Y, C1483W, and N1530T in ORF1 and P259S in ORF2 (FHF and AVH); v1213A in ORF1 (chronic hepatitis); Y1320H, G1634R/K, K1383N, D1384G, K1398R, V1479I, and Y1587F in ORF1 (ribavirin treatment failure); and A317T, T735I, L1110F, V1120I, and G1634K in ORF1 and L477T and L613 in ORF2 (B cell and T cell neutralization). The potential effect of T (MHCI and MHC II) cell and B cell epitope mutations on antigenicity were inferred with published amino acid sequences of wild-type T cell and B cell epitopes [15]; this included epitope T2-T5 in MHCI, T7-T12 in MHCII in T cell epitope, and epitope B2-B8 in B cell epitope.

Statistical analysis

All data collected in this study were cleaned and entered into an SPSS database. Analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software (IBM SPSS Statistics 23, NY USA). Categorical variables were compared with Fisher’s exact test and continuous variables by Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Study population

From August 2013 to June 2015, 92 HEV IgM antibody positive plasma samples were collected (44 (47.8%) in 2013–2014 and 48 (52.2%) in 2014–2015). 53 (57.6%) samples were from female patients, including 24 (45.3%) from pregnant women. The median age of the patients was 25 (IQR; 21–30 years). Of these 92 patients 70 (76.1%) patients were HEV RNA positive (33 men and 37 women (14 pregnant and 23 non-pregnant women)). 84.6% (33/39) of the samples from men were HEV RNA positive compared to 69.8% (37/53) of samples from women (p = 0.08; chi squared test). Among the women patients, 79.3% (23/29) non-pregnant women and 58.3% (14/24) pregnant women were HEV RNA positive. There was no difference in age, sex, HEV RNA positivity among patients recruited during 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 (S3 File).

Sequencing of HEV

HEV RNA positive plasma samples were subjected to sequencing. A schematic diagram of the DNA amplicons sequenced for each sample is shown in S4 File. At least one DNA fragment could be sequenced in all of the plasma samples. Ultimately, a 279bp fragment of ORF 2–3 (used for genotyping) or an entire genome sequence (when generated) were subjected to phylogenetic analysis. The final data set included 38 (17 from incomplete genome sequence and 21 from complete genome sequence) ORF2-3 sequences and 21 whole genome sequences (1 from pregnant women, 6 from non-pregnant women, and 14 from men).

Genome assembly and phylogenetics

The average length of novel HEV genomes was 7,215bp (range; 7,202–7,221bp) excluding the 3’ poly (A) tail. Each genome had a 17-28bp untranslated region at 5’ end, a 66bp untranslated region at 3’ end, and a poly A tail of variable length (8-33bp). The complete HEV genome contains 3 open reading frames (ORF); ORF1 was from 28 to 5,109 bp; ORF2 was from 5,147bp– 7,129bp and; ORF3 was from 5,106bp– 5,477bp. ORF2 starts after 41 bases of ORF1. ORF3 overlapped ORF1 by four bases and ORF2 by 333bp.

The predicted translated protein of ORF1 was 1,694 amino acids. The NTP-binding domains GVPGSGKS and DEAP in the putative helicase region and the GDD site was found in RDRP regions of all isolates. The ORF1 sequences were highly conserved, with 98.1% identity (min-max; 97.05–97.91%) at the DNA level and 99.5% (min-max; 98.75–100%) identity at the amino acid level. The predicted translated product of ORF2 was 660 amino acids. Identity within ORF2 was 98.6% (min-max; 98.44–97.81%) at a nucleotide level, and 99.5% (min-max, 98.34–100%) at the amino acid level. The translated product of ORF3 product was 124 amino acids. The nucleotide similarity of ORF3 was 99.38% (min-max 98.39–99.19%) and 99.23% (min-max, 97.56–100%) identical at amino acid level.

In a phylogenetic analysis of the 279 bp fragment of ORF2-3 of all 38 Bangladeshi HEV sequences (17 from incomplete genome sequence and 21 from complete genome sequence) from this study clustered in proximity to HEV genotype 1a sequences (S5 File). In a further phylogenetic analysis, the 21 whole genome sequences from this study clustered alongside genotype 1a HEV from India, Burma, and Nepal (Fig 1) and two near complete WGS from a 2010 outbreak in Rajshahi. Notably, the genotype 1 HEV sequences from China, Pakistan, and various African countries formed an independent cluster.

Fig 1. Phylogenetic analysis of 109 reference HEV genome sequence and 21 Bangladeshi endemic HEV genome sequences from present syudy.

Fig 1

A midpoint rooted tree showing the relationship between the 21 Bangladeshi HEV genome sequences with 109 reference sequences representing all genotype and subtypes. The tree was constructed using RAxML v7.2.8 available in Geneious software using GTR+G+I nucleotide substitution model with 500 bootstrapping replicates. The Bangladeshi HEV strains from this study is presented as followed by strain number, and the reference genomes are presented as genotype, subtype followed by GenBank accession number and the country of origin. The scale bar indicates the number of nucleotide substitution.

A subsequent phylogenetic analysis with whole genome sequences (n = 20) from counties neighboring Bangladesh found that genotype 1a sequences fell into two main clusters. The first cluster contained HEV from India, Nepal, and Myanmar, the second cluster included the 21 HEV from the present study and two HEV sequence from a previous outbreak in northern Bangladesh (Fig 2); these HEV DNA sequences were >99% identical across the genome.

Fig 2. Phylogenetic analysis of 20 reference HEV genome sequence from Bangladesh and neiboring countries and 21 Bangladeshi endemic HEV genome sequences from present syudy.

Fig 2

A midpoint rooted tree showing the relationship between the 21 Bangladeshi HEV genome sequences with 20 genotype 1a reference sequences from neighboring countries. The tree was constructed using RAxML v7.2.8 available in Geneious software using GTR+G+I nucleotide substitution model with 500 bootstrapping replicates. The Bangladeshi HEV strains from this study are presented as followed by strain number, and reference genomes are presented as genotype, subtype followed by GenBank accession number and the country of origin. The scale bar indicates the number of nucleotide substitution.

Virulence associated mutation analysis

Mutations associated with severe disease in 21 HEV WGS from this study are shown in Table 1. All HEV sequences harbored the A317T, T735I, and L1120I mutations in ORF1; 80.9% had an L1110F mutation in ORF1 and a P259S mutation in ORF2; these are known to be associated with FHF and AVH. None of sequences had a V1213A mutation associated with chronic infection. The ribavirin resistance-associated mutations V1479I and G1634K were also detected in all sequences. Conversely, none of the sequences had the Y1320H, K1383N, D1384G, K1398N, and Y1587F mutations. With respect to immune escape mutations, all sequences had the L477T mutation associated with the B and T cell immune reactivity (Table 2). Additionally, all viruses had mutations associated with altered T cell antigenicity (MCHI and MCHII) and B cell epitopes, exceptions were the T3 and B3 epitopes where 76.1% (16/21) of the HEV had mutations in these loci (Table 2). Mutations in T cell recognition epitope (T3, T5, and T7) with the highest reduction antigenicity were observed in 76.1%, 100%, and 100% of the HEV sequences, respectively (Table 2).

Table 1. Mutations associated with FHF, chronic hepatitis, ribavirin treatment failure and B and T cell epitope neutralization in 21 HEV WGS isolated in this study.

Fulminant hepatic failure Chronic hepatitis Ribavirin treatment failure Epitope neutralization
ORF1 ORF2 ORF1 ORF1 ORF2
Isolate No MT Y-Dom HVR Helicase RDRP Helicase RDRP
F179S A317T T735I L1110F V1120I F1439Y C1483W N1530T P259S V1213A Y1320H K1383N D1384G K1398N V1479I Y1587F G1634K L477T L613T
%(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n) %(n)
0 (0) 100 (21) 100 (21) 81.8 (17) 100 (21) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 100 (21) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 100 (21) 0 (0) 100 (21) 100 (21) 0 (0)
BDHEV_F004 T I I S NA I K T
BDHEV_F034 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_F 120 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_F 126 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_F 151 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_F170 T I I S NA I K T
BDHEV_P018 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 079 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 082 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 085 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 089 T I I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 112 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 118 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 125 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 127 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 128 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 143 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 188 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_M 198 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_MX02 T I F I S NA I K T
BDHEV_MX08 T I I S NA I K T

MT: Methyl transferees; Y-Dom: Y domain; HVR: Hyper variable region; RDRP: RNA dependent RNA polymerase; NA: Not applicable.

Table 2. Antigenicity evaluation of wild-type and mutated epitopes of 21 HEV strains from this study.

No of isolate Region Epitope number Position Predicted epitope aa Antigenicity Actual epitopes aa Antigenicity
% (N)
MHC I
100 (21) ORF1 T2 T735I ATPTPAAPL 0.2 ATPT/IPAAPL 0.2
76.1 (16) ORF1 T3 L1110F TTSRVLRSL 0.4 TTSRVL/FRSL -0.6
100 (21) ORF1 T5 G1634K AVSDFLRGL 0.4 AVSDFLRG/KL -0.6
MHC II
100 (21) ORF1 T7 A317T FHAVPAHIW 0.5 FHAVPA/THIW -0.7
100 (21) T8 T735I IPSRAATPT 0.2 IPSRAATPT/I 1
100 (21) T9 V1120I FWGEPAVGQ 0.2 FWGEPAV/IGQ 0.2
100 (21) T10 V1479I LGLECAVME 0.8 LGLECAV/IME 0.7
100 (21) T11 G1634K LRGLTNVAQ 0.7 LRG/KLTNVAQ 0.7
100 (21) ORF2 T12 L477T WLSLLAAEY 1.1 WLSLL/TAAEY 1.7
B cell epitopes
100 (21) ORF1 B2 T735I TPAAPLPSP 0.1 T/IPAAPLPSP 0.1
76.1 (16) B3 L1110F TTSRVLRSL 0.1 TTSRVL/FRSL 0.01
100 (21) B4 V1120I WGEPAVGQK 0.8 WGEPAV/IGQK 1
100 (21) B6 G1634K SDFLRKLTN 0.1 SDFLRG/KLTN -0.1
100 (21) ORF2 B7 L477T SLTAAEYDQ 1.1 SLL/TAAEYDQ 1.0
100 (21) B8 L613T LLDYPARAH 0.4 L/TLDYPARAH 0.4

The effect of mutation and antigenicity was adopted from Ikram et al,. Bolt letters indicate mutations in the predicted epitopes.

Discussion

HEV outbreaks are commonly undetected in LMICs due to a lack of disease surveillance and/or diagnostic capacity. Here, we analyzed samples collected systematically over a two year period to characterize endemic HEV genotypes in Bangladesh and compare with outbreak HEV genotypes. To our knowledge, this is the first report regarding the molecular characterization and WGS of endemic HEV strains from Bangladesh. Although there was no outbreak reported during the study period, the possibility of unidentified and/or unreported outbreak cannot be excluded. Smaller outbreaks often remain unreported due to lack of active surveillance in Bangladesh [30]; therefore, it is possible that viral strains characterized in this study may include outbreak strains.

Among the HEV IgM positive patients, 70% were HEV RNA positive. This discrepancy may be due to several factor including i) low viral load, ii) poor storage condition of the sample, or iii) the sensitivity of the qPCR assays for HEV isolates from Bangladesh. The prevalence of RNA positivity was higher in male patients compared to female (however, the difference was not significant) and was lowest in pregnant women. It is possible that male patients visited the hospital during active infection. In Bangladesh, men are main earning member in the family, and they seek healthcare earlier to minimize the wage loss due to sickness. Pregnant women in Bangladesh usually seek health care from “Maternal and Child Health (MCH)” clinics and referred to tertiary facilities when conditions worsen. This delay may result in lower RNA positivity in pregnant women.

All viral sequence in the present study were genotype 1a. When compared with genotype 1a strains from India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Myanmar, the Bangladeshi HEV strains formed a separate cluster within the genotype 1a cluster. HEV strains from the present study (and from the 2010 outbreak from northern Bangladesh) had high amino acid and DNA sequence similarity. We suspect that these HEV strains have entered endemic circulation and associated with sustained infections and HEV outbreaks. The exact etiology of outbreak or epidemic is beyond our investigation, but could be associated with various host or environmental factors. Most of the HEV sequences in our study harbored FHF and AVH associated mutations. It is possible that the majority of patients had severe infections as severely ill patients are generally referred to tertiary hospitals. These mutations have also been reported in HEV strains from FHF patients in India [16]. The clustering of Bangladeshi HEV strains among genotype 1a might be due possible evolution and host genetic adaptation of these viruses in this population [5].

The predicted B and T cells epitopes overlap in HEV, and these mutations might alter (increase or decrease) the antigenicity of the HEV. Mutations with highest antigenicity alteration in MHC class I (T3 and T5) and MCH II (T7) were present in most of the HEV in our study. It is possible that this is a strategy adopted by HEV to escape the host immune response. For MHC I, two immune reactivity related mutations (L477T and L613T) overlap with B and T cell epitopes. Generally, antibody recognizing conformational epitopes are neutralizing, and the amino acid residues L477 and L613 in the capsid protein might play a role in epitope deformation [31]. HEV specific T cell targets are generally conserved and located in the capsid protein in ORF2. As T cell response persists for a longer period, these mutations can influence both clearance of virus after primary infection and protective immune response against secondary infection [32]. The presence of G1634K mutation affects the ribavirin treatment response and a V1479I mutation is associated with ribavirin treatment failure. All HEV in our study had a G1634K and a V1479I mutation. Therefore, it is possible that HEV patients in Bangladesh treated with ribavirin might respond poorly [17,18,33].

This study has several limitations; the samples were collected from patients attending a single tertiary care facility in Dhaka and may not be representative of the general population of Bangladesh. Patients with mild or moderate infection usually seek care at the local hospitals or private practitioners. As the samples were unlinked, clinical condition of the patients and disease outcome is unknown. We collected only 4 samples per months, increasing the sample size might have captured more variations present in the HEV strains in Bangladesh. Although there was no reported outbreak during the study period, the possibility of unreported outbreaks cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

Taken together, our data show that strains of HEV genotype 1a are dominant in Bangladesh and are associated with endemic and outbreak of HEV infection. HEV isolates in Bangladesh have high prevalence of virulence associated and ribavirin resistant mutations which may influence treatment with Ribavirin. HEV isolates in our study contains mutation which alters antigenicity to B and T cell epitopes and facilitates evading host immune response.

Supporting information

S1 File. List of primers used for whole genome amplification in this study.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Accession number, genotype and subtype, and country of origin for 109 Hepatitis E virus used as representative reference strain.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Sociodemographic characteristics, HEV RNA positivity and HEV WGS information 92 patient samples analyzed in this study.

(DOCX)

S4 File. Schematic presentation of the sequencing of 92 HEV IgM ELISA positive samples.

Among 92 samples, 70 were qPCR positive (column 3), qPCR negative samples are presented in transparent rows. A total of 825 fragments (column 28) could be amplified and sequenced (dark block) (range 1–24). Whole genome sequence could be obtained for 21 HEV viral strain. Fragment 20 (nucleotide sequence 5822 to 6211) contains the ORF 2–3 overlapping section could be sequence in 38 (21+ 17) strain.

(DOCX)

S5 File. Phylogenetic analysis of 109 reference HEV genome sequence and 279bp fragment (ORF 2 and ORF) of 38 Bangladeshi endemic HEV sequence from present study.

A midpoint rooted tree showing the relationship between the 38 Bangladeshi HEV sequences with 109 reference sequences representing all genotype and subtypes. The tree was constructed using RAxML v7.2.8 available in Geneious software using GTR+G+I nucleotide substitution model with 500 bootstrapping replicates. The Bangladeshi HEV strains from this study is presented as ● followed by strain number, and the reference genomes are presented as genotype, subtype followed by GenBank accession number and the country of origin. The scale bar indicates the number of nucleotide substitution.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank OUCRU laboratory management staff for supporting the sequencing of HEV strains.

Data Availability

All sequences were submitted to GenBank. Accession no; (MK005535 to MK005551) for the ORF2-3 region, and (MH991993 to MH992013) for the whole genome sequences.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Vietnam.

References

  • 1.Rein DB, Stevens GA, Theaker J, Wittenborn JS, Wiersma ST: The global burden of hepatitis E virus genotypes 1 and 2 in 2005. Hepatology 2012, 55(4):988–997. doi: 10.1002/hep.25505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Webb GW, Dalton HR: Hepatitis E: an underestimated emerging threat. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2019, 6:2049936119837162. doi: 10.1177/2049936119837162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Global Hepatitis Report 2017. In.: World Health Organization; 2017.
  • 4.Kmush BL, Labrique A, Li W, Klein SL, Schulze K, Shaikh S, et al. : The Association of Cytokines and Micronutrients with Hepatitis E Virus Infection During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period in Rural Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2016, 94(1):203–211. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Smith DB, Purdy MA, Simmonds P: Genetic variability and the classification of hepatitis E virus. J Virol 2013, 87(8):4161–4169. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02762-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ahmad I, Holla RP, Jameel S: Molecular virology of hepatitis E virus. Virus Res 2011, 161(1):47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2011.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Holla RP, Ahmad I, Ahmad Z, Jameel S: Molecular virology of hepatitis E virus. Semin Liver Dis 2013, 33(1):3–14. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1338110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.van Tong H, Hoan NX, Wang B, Wedemeyer H, Bock CT, Velavan TP: Hepatitis E Virus Mutations: Functional and Clinical Relevance. EBioMedicine 2016, 11:31–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.07.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Huang FF, Sun ZF, Emerson SU, Purcell RH, Shivaprasad HL, Pierson FW, et al. : Determination and analysis of the complete genomic sequence of avian hepatitis E virus (avian HEV) and attempts to infect rhesus monkeys with avian HEV. J Gen Virol 2004, 85(Pt 6):1609–1618. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.79841-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hakim MS, Wang W, Bramer WM, Geng J, Huang F, de Man RA, et al. : The global burden of hepatitis E outbreaks: a systematic review. Liver Int 2017, 37(1):19–31. doi: 10.1111/liv.13237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Boxall E, Herborn A, Kochethu G, Pratt G, Adams D, Ijaz S, et al. : Transfusion-transmitted hepatitis E in a ’nonhyperendemic’ country. Transfus Med 2006, 16(2):79–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3148.2006.00652.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cooper K, Huang FF, Batista L, Rayo CD, Bezanilla JC, Toth TE, et al. : Identification of genotype 3 hepatitis E virus (HEV) in serum and fecal samples from pigs in Thailand and Mexico, where genotype 1 and 2 HEV strains are prevalent in the respective human populations. J Clin Microbiol 2005, 43(4):1684–1688. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.4.1684-1688.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huang F, Li Y, Yu W, Jing S, Wang J, Long F, et al. : Excretion of infectious hepatitis E virus into milk in cows imposes high risks of zoonosis. Hepatology 2016, 64(2):350–359. doi: 10.1002/hep.28668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Khuroo MS, Khuroo MS, Khuroo NS: Transmission of Hepatitis E Virus in Developing Countries. Viruses 2016, 8(9). doi: 10.3390/v8090253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ikram A, Hakim MS, Zhou JH, Wang W, Peppelenbosch MP, Pan Q: Genotype-specific acquisition, evolution and adaptation of characteristic mutations in hepatitis E virus. Virulence 2018, 9(1):121–132. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2017.1358349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mishra N, Walimbe AM, Arankalle VA: Hepatitis E virus from India exhibits significant amino acid mutations in fulminant hepatic failure patients. Virus Genes 2013, 46(1):47–53. doi: 10.1007/s11262-012-0833-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Todt D, Gisa A, Radonic A, Nitsche A, Behrendt P, Suneetha PV, et al. : In vivo evidence for ribavirin-induced mutagenesis of the hepatitis E virus genome. Gut 2016, 65(10):1733–1743. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Debing Y, Ramiere C, Dallmeier K, Piorkowski G, Trabaud MA, Lebosse F, et al. : Hepatitis E virus mutations associated with ribavirin treatment failure result in altered viral fitness and ribavirin sensitivity. J Hepatol 2016, 65(3):499–508. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Talukdar PK, Rahman M, Rahman M, Nabi A, Islam Z, Hoque MM, et al. : Antimicrobial resistance, virulence factors and genetic diversity of Escherichia coli isolates from household water supply in Dhaka, Bangladesh. PLoS One 2013, 8(4):e61090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ayesha Begum S T, Md. Nazrul Islam, Afzalunnessa: Seroprevalence of Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) Infection Among Patients Attending BSMMU, Dhaka. Bangladesh J Med Microbiol 2007, 01(02):52–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Labrique AB, Zaman K, Hossain Z, Saha P, Yunus M, Hossain A, et al. : An exploratory case control study of risk factors for hepatitis E in rural Bangladesh. PLoS One 2013, 8(5):e61351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sheikh A, Sugitani M, Kinukawa N, Moriyama M, Arakawa Y, Komiyama K, et al. : Hepatitis e virus infection in fulminant hepatitis patients and an apparently healthy population in Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2002, 66(6):721–724. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gurley ES, Hossain MJ, Paul RC, Sazzad HM, Islam MS, Parveen S, et al. : Outbreak of hepatitis E in urban Bangladesh resulting in maternal and perinatal mortality. Clin Infect Dis 2014, 59(5):658–665. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jothikumar N, Cromeans TL, Robertson BH, Meng XJ, Hill VR: A broadly reactive one-step real-time RT-PCR assay for rapid and sensitive detection of hepatitis E virus. J Virol Methods 2006, 131(1):65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Harun-Or-Rashid M, Akbar SM, Takahashi K, Al-Mahtab M, Khan MS, Alim MA, et al. : Epidemiological and molecular analyses of a non-seasonal outbreak of acute icteric hepatitis E in Bangladesh. J Med Virol 2013, 85(8):1369–1376. doi: 10.1002/jmv.23601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lu L, Li C, Hagedorn CH: Phylogenetic analysis of global hepatitis E virus sequences: genetic diversity, subtypes and zoonosis. Rev Med Virol 2006, 16(1):5–36. doi: 10.1002/rmv.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Smith DB, Simmonds P, Izopet J, Oliveira-Filho EF, Ulrich RG, Johne R, et al. : Proposed reference sequences for hepatitis E virus subtypes. J Gen Virol 2016, 97(3):537–542. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Smith DB, Bukh J, Kuiken C, Muerhoff AS, Rice CM, Stapleton JT, et al. : Expanded classification of hepatitis C virus into 7 genotypes and 67 subtypes: updated criteria and genotype assignment web resource. Hepatology 2014, 59(1):318–327. doi: 10.1002/hep.26744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Posada D: jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Molecular biology and evolution 2008, 25(7):1253–1256. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sazzad HM, Labrique AB, Teo CG, Luby SP, Gurley ES: Surveillance at Private Laboratories Identifies Small Outbreaks of Hepatitis E in Urban Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2017, 96(2):395–399. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang H, Dai X, Shan X, Meng J: The Leu477 and Leu613 of ORF2-encoded protein are critical in forming neutralization antigenic epitope of hepatitis E virus genotype 4. Cell Mol Immunol 2008, 5(6):447–456. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2008.56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brown A, Halliday JS, Swadling L, Madden RG, Bendall R, Hunter JG, et al. : Characterization of the Specificity, Functionality, and Durability of Host T-Cell Responses Against the Full-Length Hepatitis E Virus. Hepatology 2016, 64(6):1934–1950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Debing Y, Gisa A, Dallmeier K, Pischke S, Bremer B, Manns M, et al. : A mutation in the hepatitis E virus RNA polymerase promotes its replication and associates with ribavirin treatment failure in organ transplant recipients. Gastroenterology 2014, 147(5):1008–1011 e1007; quiz e1015-1006. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.08.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pierre Roques

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-39475

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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 provide the details requested by the reviewer and explain the process of the full sequence validation using RACE PCR. As noted the abstract line 40 is confusing as we may understand that 38+21 strains were typed while there were 38 genotyped strains from which 21 full sequences were obtained.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 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,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

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. As part of your revisions please provide additional information about the source/origin of the samples utilized for this study. You indicate in your Methods that you collected samples that had been submitted to the virology department of BSMMU and that these samples had been systematically selected, i.e.  Systematically first four HEV IgM ELISA positive patients each month.

Please indicate whether the patients or next of kin provided informed consent for the use of these samples and the form of consent (written or oral). If the samples were anonymized please state so.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This study was supported by the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Vietnam.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

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

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

sorry for the delay in the reviewing process.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: Hao and colleagues describe the closely grouped hepatitis E virus genotype 1a associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh. The paper is quite interesting, I have some concerns.

Line 40 ; Lines 43-44 ; lines-239-240 : Authors should provide precisions at this level for a better understanding. Is it the 21 sequences from complete genome sequence or the 38 sequences from incomplete genome sequence.

Lines 121-124 : The authors should provide more details on the selection criteria for the first four ELISA-positive patients of the month, in order to better interpret the results, e.g., did these patients have any symptoms of the disease or not ?

Line 129 : Review the title of the section, it's « Amplification and sequencing »

Lines 134-137 : What was the point of doing this RACE PCR, given that only the 21 sequences underwent a phylogenetic analysis?

Lines 143-144 : What is the point to aligne overlapping sequences?

Lines 194-195 : The authors report that at least one DNA fragment could be sequenced in all plasma samples. However, only 38 sequences ((17 from incomplete genome sequence and 21 from complete genome sequence) on the 70 PCR positive samples could be obtained and sequenced.

Lines 197-198 : How do the authors explain this difference with the sequences obtained by WGS (21 complete genome sequences) and RACE PCR (38 incomplete genome sequences) ?

Lines 210-126 : Is this high sequence conservation observed only at the ORF1 sequences level ?

Lines 275-276 : Aren't the two arguments reported by the authors linked?

Lines 276-282 : These explanations of the authors are in contradiction with those reported at the level of the results (lines 189-190).

Lines 283-285 : How do the authors explain this distinction of the Bangladeshi HEV strains within the genotype 1a cluster ?

Lines 290-292 : Doesn't this explanation contradict the argument that the observed discrepancy between IgM and RNA-positive levels is due to a resolution of the active infection ?

Line 38 : Can it be said that strains of genotype 1a are dominant in Bangladesh, since the authors themselves reported that their study had several limitations

**********

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

[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. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0255054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255054.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Mar 2021

Response to reviewer’s:

PONE-D-20-39475

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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 provide the details requested by the reviewer and explain the process of the full sequence validation using RACE PCR. As noted the abstract line 40 is confusing as we may understand that 38+21 strains were typed while there were 38 genotyped strains from which 21 full sequences were obtained.

Response: We have rephrased the sentence and warding to address the confusion on the number of strains genotyped and the number of strains with whole genome sequenced. Plz see line 38-42.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 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'.

Response: We have uploaded separate file as “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'.

Response: We have uploaded a file labeled “Revised Manuscript with Track Change”.

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

Response: We have uploaded a 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.

Response: We have included the updated financial disclosure statement in Cover 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,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

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

Response: We have followed the guidelines

2. As part of your revisions please provide additional information about the source/origin of the samples utilized for this study. You indicate in your Methods that you collected samples that had been submitted to the virology department of BSMMU and that these samples had been systematically selected, i.e. Systematically first four HEV IgM ELISA positive patients each month.

Please indicate whether the patients or next of kin provided informed consent for the use of these samples and the form of consent (written or oral). If the samples were anonymized please state so.

Response: We have revised the section as suggested by the reviewer and mentioned the how samples were anonymized. Plz see line 124-129.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This study was supported by the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Vietnam.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

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

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We have removed the funding information from acknowledgement section. We have added the amended information in the revised cover letter. We have added new text in acknowledgement section.

Additional Editor Comments:

sorry for the delay in the reviewing process.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have reviewed the references and couldn’t find any retracted article.

[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: I Don't Know

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

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: Hao and colleagues describe the closely grouped hepatitis E virus genotype 1a associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh. The paper is quite interesting, I have some concerns.

Line 40 ; Lines 43-44 ; lines-239-240 : Authors should provide precisions at this level for a better understanding. Is it the 21 sequences from complete genome sequence or the 38 sequences from incomplete genome sequence.

Response: We have rephrased the sentence as following; “A 279 bp open reading frame (ORF) 2 and ORF 3 sequence was obtained from 54.2% (38/70) of the strains. Of these, whole genome sequence (WGS) was obtained from 21 strains. In phylogenetic analysis using the 279 bp sequence all HEV sequences belonged to genotype 1 and subtype 1a” . Plz see Abstract line 38 to 42.

Lines 121-124 : The authors should provide more details on the selection criteria for the first four ELISA-positive patients of the month, in order to better interpret the results, e.g., did these patients have any symptoms of the disease or not ?

Response: We agree with the reviewer that clinical information of the patients would have been helpful to interpret the data. However, this component of the study was a genome surveillance for HEV to understand the genomic epidemiology and genotype of HEV strains circulating in Bangladesh. Patients with HEV IgM test request and HEV IgM positive were eligible for including in the study. We selected the first four HEV IgM positive samples each month. Samples were unlinked with patient data be replacing the patient ID with a study ID. We had limited patient information e.g. age, gender and pregnancy status (in case of female) of the patients. This has been mentioned in the limitations of the study. We have revised study design and population section. Plz see line 122 to 129 and line 343.

Line 129 : Review the title of the section, it's « Amplification and sequencing »

Response: We have revised the title of the section.

Lines 134-137 : What was the point of doing this RACE PCR, given that only the 21 sequences underwent a phylogenetic analysis?

Response: We apologies for the confusion. RACE PCR was not performed for all strains. In strains where maximum number of overlapping fragments could be amplified and sequenced a RACE PCR was conducted to complete the 5’ and 3’ region. Number of fragments amplified and sequenced for each strain are presented “S File 4; fragment map”. We have also revised the text; Plz see line 140-142

Lines 143-144 : What is the point to aligne overlapping sequences?

Response: For each strain we tried to amplify and sequence the whole genome in 24 fragments. Overlapping sequences were aligned to generate the full length sequences where all fragments could be amplified and sequenced (n=21). The number of fragments amplified and sequenced are presented in “S File 4; fragment map”. We have revised the warding to clarify it. Plz see line 149-150

Lines 194-195 : The authors report that at least one DNA fragment could be sequenced in all plasma samples. However, only 38 sequences ((17 from incomplete genome sequence and 21 from complete genome sequence) on the 70 PCR positive samples could be obtained and sequenced.

Response: We apologies for the confusion. We attempted to sequence complete genome of all strains (n=70), however we could not amplify and sequence all 24 fragments for each stains. Fragments amplified and sequenced for each strain is presented “S file 4”. We could amplify 825 fragments from 70 strains. Of these, all 24 fragments were amplified and sequenced for 21 strains. All 24 fragments could not be amplified or sequenced for the remaining 49 strains. Of these strains (n=49), along with other fragments, the 279 bp ORF2 and ORF 3 region (Fragment no 20 (S20)) could be amplified and sequenced for 17 strains.

Lines 197-198 : How do the authors explain this difference with the sequences obtained by WGS (21 complete genome sequences) and RACE PCR (38 incomplete genome sequences) ?

Response: RACE PCR was not conducted for strains with incomplete genome sequences. We conducted RACE PCR for 21 stains (21 complete genome sequence) to complete the 5’ and 3’ ends. We have revised the text on this, plz see line 140-142

Lines 210-126 : Is this high sequence conservation observed only at the ORF1 sequences level ?

Response: We observed high sequence conservation in all three region among isolates where WGS were available.

Lines 275-276 : Aren't the two arguments reported by the authors linked?

Response: We have revised the arguments. Plz see line 285.

Lines 276-282 : These explanations of the authors are in contradiction with those reported at the level of the results (lines 189-190).

Response: We apologies for the confusion. In Line 189-190, we compared all patients (both male and female) recruited during 2013-14 and 2014-15. In line 276-282, we compared difference among male and female patients. We have rephrased the sentence and added data on RNA positivity among male and female patients in results section. Plz see line 194-200.

Lines 283-285 : How do the authors explain this distinction of the Bangladeshi HEV strains within the genotype 1a cluster ?

Response: The exact reason for this clustering among HEV genotype 1a strains is unknown, but it is possible that viral evolution and host genetic adaption of these viruses in Bangladeshi population might be an underlying reason. We have included a comment in the discussion, plz see line 302-303

Lines 290-292 : Doesn't this explanation contradict the argument that the observed discrepancy between IgM and RNA-positive levels is due to a resolution of the active infection ?

Response: We agree with the reviewer and removed the sentence: i) active HEV infection was resolved when the patient visited the hospital. Plz see line 285.

Line 318 : Can it be said that strains of genotype 1a are dominant in Bangladesh, since the authors themselves reported that their study had several limitations

Response: we have made the suggestive change. Plz see line 328

________________________________________

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

[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.

Response: We have uploaded and the figures in PACE and the figures meet PLOS requirements

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pierre Roques

30 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-39475R1

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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 provide to the reviewers and include in the article text the answers to his questions.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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)

**********

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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Some of my concerns about the study still remain.

Line 31: Authors should modify "HEV infected patients" to HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive patients

Lines 40-42: The authors should clarify, because it seemed to me that the phylogenetic analysis was performed with the 21 WGS sequences of HEV (Figure 1 and 2)

Line 132: In this section, what was the methodology used to obtain the 38 sequences of 279 bp.

Line 137: To Clarify the nested PCR method used: What primers were used? What were the expected fragment sizes?

Lines 167-168: The authors must specify that it is on the 21 HEV WGS that the mutations have been identified.

Lines 225-227: these data are not available in the figures (Fig 1 and 2).

Lines 264-267: The authors should note that the analysis of virulence-associated mutations was limited to the 21 WGS (Table 1)

Lines 300-302: Molecular detection tests (qPCR) by reference are more sensitive than serological tests (Ig anti-HEV). Thus, the difference observed in this study is not rather related to the non-existence of a serological test of reference.

Lines302-307: The authors must specify that this observed difference was not significant (P=0.08)

**********

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

[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. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0255054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255054.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 May 2021

Review Comments to the Author and response

Reviewer #1: Some of my concerns about the study still remain.

Line 31: Authors should modify "HEV infected patients" to HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive patients

Response: We have modified the sentence as suggested, plz see line 31

Lines 40-42: The authors should clarify, because it seemed to me that the phylogenetic analysis was performed with the 21 WGS sequences of HEV (Figure 1 and 2)

Response: We have modified the sentence to clarify it, plz see line 41-44

Line 132: In this section, what was the methodology used to obtain the 38 sequences of 279 bp.

Response: We apologize for the confusion. The 279 bp fragment was amplified and sequenced by primer set 20 (S1 File). We have added clarification, plz see line 145-147

Line 137: To Clarify the nested PCR method used: What primers were used? What were the expected fragment sizes?

Response: For nested PCR we used 20 sets of primers (each set contains 4 primers (two external and two internal). Plz see details in S 1 File. The fragment size was 450-600 bp, plz see line 139-140.

Lines 167-168: The authors must specify that it is on the 21 HEV WGS that the mutations have been identified.

Response: We have specified as suggested. Plz see line 172-173

Lines 225-227: these data are not available in the figures (Fig 1 and 2).

Response: We agree with the reviewer. We have added a supplementary figure (S4 File) to present the data.

Lines 264-267: The authors should note that the analysis of virulence-associated mutations was limited to the 21 WGS (Table 1)

Response: We have mentioned in the title of Table 1. Plz see table 1 and table 2

Lines 300-302: Molecular detection tests (qPCR) by reference are more sensitive than serological tests (Ig anti-HEV). Thus, the difference observed in this study is not rather related to the non-existence of a serological test of reference.

Response: We have modified the sentence to address the issue. Plz see line 308

Lines302-307: The authors must specify that this observed difference was not significant (P=0.08)

Response: We have revised the sentence. Plz see line 309

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 2

Pierre Roques

25 May 2021

PONE-D-20-39475R2

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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 correct the minor points rised by the reviewer and correct the supplement table 1 with the primers as the indication of sense and antisens are misleaded and confusing. In addition, numbering of the reverse-sens primers should be also reversed as an example

HEV-S2-A1

1st antisense

GTTCAGCGYTGGTATACTGC

348 - 367

should be numbered as 367 - 348 to  indicate that the sequence is read on the negative (-) strand ; in extenso in the 3' to 5' direction on the positive (+) strand that is the reference sequence used to number the position.

In this S1 file all primers' sets are for nested PCR and named it 1st sense, 2nd sense then 1st antisense, 2nd antisense but the numbering you indicated clearly shown that the order is 1st sense, 1st antisense, 2nd sense, 2nd antisense. Please clarify and explain the size of the Set 20 product (ie how you read 279 base pairs at the end).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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)

**********

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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Some of my concerns about the study still remain.

Lines 60-61: Authors should modify "HEV infected patients" to HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive patients

Lines 146-147: How do the authors explain the obtaining of a 279bp fragment, when the primers used amplify fragments of 450-550

Line 146: to be corrected ORF3

Lines 305-307: Molecular detection tests (qPCR) by reference are more sensitive than serological tests (Ig anti-HEV). Thus, the difference observed in this study is not rather related to the non-existence of a serological test of reference.

Lines 316-317: Despite this high sequence similarity, the authors report in the summary section that the HEV strains from the present study formed a distinct cluster with the 2010 HEV outbreak strains from northern Bangladesh lines (45-46)

**********

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

[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. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0255054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255054.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


7 Jul 2021

Response to Reviewer:

Please correct the minor points raised by the reviewer and correct the supplement table 1 with the primers as the indication of sense and antisense are misleading and confusing.

In addition, numbering of the reverse-sense primers should be also reversed as an example

HEV-S2-A1 1st antisense GTTCAGCGYTGGTATACTGC 348 - 367

should be numbered as 367 - 348 to indicate that the sequence is read on the negative (-) strand ; in extenso in the 3' to 5' direction on the positive (+) strand that is the reference sequence used to number the position.

In this S1 file all primers' sets are for nested PCR and named it 1st sense, 2nd sense then 1st antisense, 2nd antisense but the numbering you indicated clearly shown that the order is 1st sense, 1st antisense, 2nd sense, 2nd antisense.

Response

We have revised the S1 File and corrected the antisense primer position numbering. The primer sequence is already reverse. We have included the the reference sequence used to number the positions.

We have corrected the organization of primers as 1st sense, 1st antisense, 2nd sense, 2nd antisense.

Please clarify and explain the size of the Set 20 product (i.e how you read 279 base pairs at the end).

Response:

The fragment 20 will amplify a `440bp fragment. Of these 440 bp fragment, we extracted 279 bp for genotyping (Ref 26). We have revised the sentence as follows and added a new reference. “We have revised the sentence for clarification “The entire genome sequences (amplified by primer set 1 to 20 (S1 File)) and a 279bp region (position 5972-6319 of GenBank accession no M73218) of ORF2 and ORF3 (part of the `440 bp fragment amplified by primer set 20 (S1 File)) were used for final analysis [26]” plz see page 145-148.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer_270521.docx

Decision Letter 3

Pierre Roques

9 Jul 2021

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

PONE-D-20-39475R3

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pierre Roques

13 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-39475R3

A tightly clustered hepatitis E virus genotype 1a is associated with endemic and outbreak infections in Bangladesh

Dear Dr. Rahman:

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

Dr. Pierre Roques

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 File. List of primers used for whole genome amplification in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Accession number, genotype and subtype, and country of origin for 109 Hepatitis E virus used as representative reference strain.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Sociodemographic characteristics, HEV RNA positivity and HEV WGS information 92 patient samples analyzed in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File. Schematic presentation of the sequencing of 92 HEV IgM ELISA positive samples.

    Among 92 samples, 70 were qPCR positive (column 3), qPCR negative samples are presented in transparent rows. A total of 825 fragments (column 28) could be amplified and sequenced (dark block) (range 1–24). Whole genome sequence could be obtained for 21 HEV viral strain. Fragment 20 (nucleotide sequence 5822 to 6211) contains the ORF 2–3 overlapping section could be sequence in 38 (21+ 17) strain.

    (DOCX)

    S5 File. Phylogenetic analysis of 109 reference HEV genome sequence and 279bp fragment (ORF 2 and ORF) of 38 Bangladeshi endemic HEV sequence from present study.

    A midpoint rooted tree showing the relationship between the 38 Bangladeshi HEV sequences with 109 reference sequences representing all genotype and subtypes. The tree was constructed using RAxML v7.2.8 available in Geneious software using GTR+G+I nucleotide substitution model with 500 bootstrapping replicates. The Bangladeshi HEV strains from this study is presented as ● followed by strain number, and the reference genomes are presented as genotype, subtype followed by GenBank accession number and the country of origin. The scale bar indicates the number of nucleotide substitution.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer_270521.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All sequences were submitted to GenBank. Accession no; (MK005535 to MK005551) for the ORF2-3 region, and (MH991993 to MH992013) for the whole genome sequences.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES