Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0270778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270778

Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu Valley

Rajindra Napit 1,2,*,#, Prajwol Manandhar 1,2, Ajit Poudel 1,2, Pragun G Rajbhandari 1,#, Sarah Watson 3, Sapana Shakya 1, Saman M Pradhan 1,2, Ajay N Sharma 1, Ashok Chaudhary 1, Christine K Johnson 4, Jonna K Mazet 4, Dibesh Karmacharya 1,2,5,*
Editor: Dwij Raj Bhatta6
PMCID: PMC9977009  PMID: 36857401

Abstract

Campylobacter spp. is often underreported and underrated bacteria that present real health risks to both humans and animals, including non-human primates. It is a commensal microorganism of gastrointestinal tract known to cause gastroenteritis in humans. Commonly found in many wild animals including non-human primates (monkeys- Rhesus macaques) these pathogens are known to be a common cause of diarrhea in humans in many parts of developing and under developed countries. Rhesus macaques from the two holy sites in Kathmandu (Pashupati and Swoyambhu) were included in this cross-sectional study. Diarrheal samples of monkeys were analyzed to detect and characterize the pathogen using 16S rRNA-based PCR screening, followed by DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. Out of a total 67 collected diarrheal samples, Campylobacter spp. were detected in the majority of the samples (n = 64; 96%). DNA sequences of the amplified PCR products were successfully obtained from 13 samples. Phylogenetic analysis identified Candidatus Campylobacter infans (n = 10, Kimura-2 parameter (K2P) pairwise distance values of 0.002287). Remaining three sequences might potentially belong to a novel Campylobacter species/sub-species- closely relating to known species of C. helviticus (K2P pairwise distance of 0.0267). Both Candidatus Campylobacter infans and C. helvitucus are known to infect humans and animals. Additionally, we also detected the bacteria in water and soil samples from the sites. Campylobacter spp. caused the 2018 diarrhea outbreak in Rhesus macaques in the Kathmandu valley. Campylobacter might be one of the important contributing pathogens in diarrheal outbreaks-both in humans and animals (monkeys) in Nepal. Due to close interactions of these animals with humans and other animals, One Health approach might be the most effective way to prevent and mitigate the threat posed by this pathogen.

Introduction

Campylobacter are gram-negative bacteria that is primarily found in gastrointestinal tract of various species [1]. As of 2022, its genus consists of a diverse group of bacteria comprising of 39 species, 11 sub-species, and 4 biovars [2]. Campylobacter spp. is a zoonotic pathogen that is found in the gut flora of many species ranging from domesticated to wild animals- both free roaming and in captivity. It is capable of infecting humans as well as non-human primates (NHP) causing mild to severe gastrointestinal problems [35]. Emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of Campylobacter is a major public health concern as animals carrying the bacteria pose a significant risk to humans via contamination of water sources, food, or through repeated interactions (physical contacts) [46]. In Nepal, Campylobacter is one of the leading causes of food-borne infections; and antibiotic resistant strains of the bacteria have also been reported in poultry slaughter houses throughout Nepal [710]. Most of the studies conducted in the country have mostly been limited to food-borne pathogenesis of Campylobacter [711]. Although, zoonotic spillover is highly prevalent from interactions with animals either carrying or infected with Campylobacter, very limited studies have been conducted in Nepal [8]. Limited publications are available documenting spillover from domesticated dogs Canis lupus familiaris [12] and from livestock to farmers [13]. However, no such studies have been published highlighting detection and possible spillover of Campylobacter from NHP such as Rhesus macaques (Macaca mullata, commonly known as monkeys) to humans in Nepal, even though, risk of such exposure and disease transmission have been widely documented [46].

Campylobacter spp. has been found in both captive and free-roaming monkeys causing diarrhea and severe enterocolitis [4, 14, 15]. Due to NHP’s high genomic similarities and close evolutionary relationships to humans, and similar gut flora detected in developing countries, the risk of zoonotic transfer of pathogenic strains of bacteria like Campylobacter is highly probable [16, 17]. Previous studies have detected presence of the bacteria in captive NHPs in the United States [18], New Zealand [19], and in Kenya [15]. Presence of pathogenic strains of the bacteria in healthy and asymptomatic monkeys [3] poses even higher risk of zoonotic spillover through direct physical contact or indirectly as a potential source of environmental contamination by fecal matter [20].

In Kathmandu, monkeys inhabit few of the major holy sites including Pashupati and Swoyambhu. These sites, are surrounded by dense urban human population and have significant human-wildlife (monkey) interactions. Following report of diarrhea outbreak (2018) in monkeys of these two sites, we carried out an opportunistic cross-sectional research- specifically designed to detect and characterize Campylobacter infections.

Traditionally, Campylobacter is detected using microaerophilic culture media (modified charcoal-cefoperazone-deoxycholate agar or mCCDA) [21] but due to the challenge of culturing the bacteria and possibility of getting false-negatives [22], we opted for molecular and sequencing methods instead and present a varied and simplified approach to whole genome sequencing (WGS) as well for strain level identification.

Materials and methods

Ethical statement

The research was conducted as a supplementary study to the PREDICT project which focused on understanding emerging diseases in urban-wildlife interfaces. All the permits and ethical clearance were obtained before the study. The non-invasive sampling and analysis were covered by the permit obtained from the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC, Ref.no. 224).

Study design and site selection

A cross-sectional study was conducted during active diarrheal outbreaks at two Rhesus macaque inhabiting sites (Pashupati and Swoyambhu) in Kathmandu (Nepal) in 2018 (June -July) [23]. The sampling sites were chosen according to the confined habitat, with a focus on areas with frequent monkey-human interactions. These two holy (temple) sites in the Kathmandu have many free-roaming monkeys and are frequently visited by people for sightseeing and religious purposes. Neighboring areas of the temples in both the sites also have a significant numbers of cattle, dogs, chickens and other birds present.

The Swoyambhunath temple, one of the oldest Buddhist holy sites in the region, is situated on top of a hillock in the northwest of the Kathmandu Valley (Fig 1). Also known as the “Monkey Temple”, the area surrounding the Swoyambhunath (with area of 2.5 square kilometer) is home to one of the largest populations of free-roaming macaques in the region. The site hosts an estimated population of 400 monkeys [24]. The Pashupatinath temple is one of the important and popular holy Hindu sites in Nepal. This site is a home to a population of 300 monkeys [24, 25], which reside in nearby patches of the forests (Bankali, Bhandarkhal and Mrigasthali) surrounding the temple premises (Fig 1) [26].

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Rhesus macaque diarrheal outbreak sites (A. Swoyambhu B. Pashupatinath) located within Kathmandu Metropolitan city, Nepal (Image was created using QGIS, base map file was obtained from data from OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap contributors) [27]) and Nepal administrative shape files obtained from Open data Nepal (opendatanepal.com) [28].

Both the sites were divided into 5 sampling transects, and 5 field teams were mobilized to systematically comb through each of the transect, and collect only diarrheal (loose) fecal samples from monkeys. Feces were collected using sterile swabs in a tube containing phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). A replicate portion of the feces were also collected in silica gel tubes. Additionally, adjacent soil and water samples from a drinking water source (pond at Swoyambhu /river at Pashupatinath) were also collected to check for any possible environmental contamination. The samples were immediately transported in cold-chain to the Intrepid Nepal Lab in Kathmandu and stored at -20°C freezer for further processing. A total of 67 opportunistic diarrheal fecal samples and soil samples (n = 11) were collected from both the sites. Water samples (n = 5, pond/river and drinking water sources) were also collected (Fig 1).

Campylobacter detection and characterization

Molecular screening and 16S rRNA gene sequencing

Bacterial DNA was extracted from the collected samples (fecal, soil and water) using Bacterial DNA extraction kit (Zymo Research, USA) using manufacturer’s protocol. Campylobacter was detected by PCR amplifying ~ 800 bp fragment of the 16S rRNA gene using Campylobacter genus specific PCR primer sets C412F and C1288R [29]. PCR amplification was done in 25μl volume containing reaction buffer, 0.2nmol primers, Taq polymerase and 2 μl template. The cycling condition for the PCR- initial denaturation at 95˚C for 4 minutes, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95˚C for 30 sec/cycle, annealing temperature of 55˚C for 30 sec and extension at 72˚C for 30 sec, and a final extension at 72˚C for 10 min. The PCR products were separated on 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis.

8μl amplified PCR product was cleaned using 2μl of ExoSAP-IT™ kit (Thermofisher, Catalog No. 78200.200.UL). The reaction mixture was then incubated for 30 minutes at 55˚C to get rid of excess PCR primers, followed by 85˚C for 10 minutes for reaction deactivation. The purified PCR products were then sequenced on an ABI thermocycler using BigDyeTM Terminator V3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Catalog No. 4337455). Excess salts and dye terminators were removed using BigDye® XTerminator™ Purification Kit (Catalog No.4376486). The samples were then analyzed on ABI 310 Genetic Analyzer.

Phylogenetic analysis

The phylogenetic analysis was performed using BEAST v2.6.4 of partial 16S rRNA sequence [30]. A ~649bp (final size after quality trim) sequences from the NCBI Genbank database was obtained of all known Campylobacter species [31]. Along with the sequences obtained from the NCBI database, 13 sequences (Genbank acc: MZ06810 to MZ068112) obtained from this study was also included to form a dataset of 16S rRNA partial sequences (S2 Table in S1 File). All the sequences were aligned using MUSCLE v3.8.425 [32] and was visualized in AliView v1.27 [33]. Model test for BEAST analysis was performed using Bmodel test v1.2.1 [34] for substitution model for 10 million iterations. The phylogenetic tree was prepared on BEAST v2.6.4 with HKY substitution model and YuleModel with 100 million iterations, every 1000 trees subsampling and discarding 25% of samples as burn-in. The log file from BEAST was analyzed using Tracer v1.7.2 [35] to verify all the parameter has effective sampling size (ESS) above 200 and tree was visualized/edited using Figtree v 1.4.4 [36]. Further, the mean genetic distance between our 13 unknown Campylobacter spp. samples and other Campylobacter spp. found in the neighboring clades from the phylogenetic analysis, were estimated through the Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) distance measure using MEGA 11 v11.0.10 [37].

Results

Out of the 67 fecal samples, 64 (95.5%) had Campylobacter (Fig 2). Some soil (n = 1) and water (n = 1) samples were also contaminated with the bacteria (Table 1).

Fig 2. Detection of Campylobacter sp. in rhesus macaque fecal samples using PCR.

Fig 2

Table 1. Campylobacter in fecal samples of rhesus macaque, soil and water from two sites in Kathmandu.

Total number of sample Number (%) Campylobacter spp. present
Rhesus Macaque Fecal 67 64 (95.5%)
Water 5 1 (20%)
Soil 11 1 (0.9%)

Sequencing and phylogenetic analysis

Out of the 64 samples, only 13 provided acceptable quality of 16S DNA sequences, which was used to conduct phylogenetic analysis to resolve taxonomy of the detected Campylobacter isolates.

The topology of the phylogenetic tree constructed showed that different species of Campylobacter spp. clustered in distinct clades. The isolates having same host species grouped together in a same clade with some exceptions. The isolates clustered into distinct two clades identified as Clade-1 and Clade-2 (Fig 3). The clade-2 samples (PE005, PB002 and SA003) clustered together with C. upsaliensis, C. vulpis, C. helveticus, C. troglodytes. Whereas clade-1 (SA002, SA004 –SA009, SA011, SB008 & PD003) samples clustered together in a monophyletic clade comprising of a recently discovered species- Candidatus Campylobacter infans.

Fig 3. Phylogenetic tree of Campylobacter spp. showing all the detected and reference sequences [constructed using Bayesian inference (BEAST v 2.6.4) and visualized/edited using Figtree v 1.4.4].

Fig 3

A) Cladogram of Campylobacter spp. B) Phylogenetic tree constructed using detected and reference Campylobacter spp.

The Kimura 2-paramater (K2P) pairwise distance between Clade-1 isolates and the recently discovered species of the Candidatus Campylobacter infans (Genbank acc: CP049075) was 0.002287 after averaging the pairwise distances (S2 Fig in S2 File). Similarly, the average K2P pairwise distance between Clade-1 isolates with an isolate of C. hyointestinalis subsp. lawsonii (Genbank acc: HQ628645) found in the neighboring clade to the isolates, was calculated to be 0.0206. The average K2P pairwise distance of the Clade-2 isolates was compared with a representative isolate of monophyletic clades of C. upsaliensis (Genbank acc: AF550642), C. troglodytes (Genbank acc: EU559331) and C. helveticus (Genbank acc: DQ174161) and was calculated to be 0.033, 0.0285, and 0.0267, respectively (S3 Fig in S2 File).

Discussion

Zoonotic pathogens are one of the most common sources of emerging diseases [38]. Campylobacter is considered to be one of the most prevalent zoonotic pathogens [39] that might be contributing to a broader antimicrobial resistance, especially in low and middle-income countries [40, 41]. Nepal has a very high burden of Campylobacter infections [7, 9, 42] and it is implicated for causing diarrhea in some of the international travelers; it is also known to cause acute gastroenteritis in children in Nepal [4345]. Rhesus macaques (monkeys) have close-interactions with humans and other domestic animals, including dogs, in some areas of densely populated Kathmandu. The risk of zoonosis and reverse zoonosis of disease between monkeys and humans are high [39].

The detection and diagnosis of Campylobacter infection has been challenging due to inefficiency in widely used culture-based detection [46]. However, availability of molecular based diagnostic techniques have proved to be effective in detecting bacterial species that are normally difficult to culture [47, 48]. Although culture methods are more feasible compared to molecular and sequencing methods, and selective culture can provide qualitative diagnosis comparable to PCR, it only identifies up to the genus level, usually takes almost a day longer compared to PCR, and Campylobacter’s low metabolic activity and often non-culturable characteristics under unfavorable conditions can also lead to false-negative results [22, 49]. Multiple studies have shown molecular methods having significantly higher sensitivity and specificity [22, 49, 50] and is often preferred when presence and burden along with strain identification of the disease is required [49]. In this study, we were interested in identification of Campylobacter at species level, thus, molecular and sequencing methods were preferred. This might be the first study in Nepal where Campylobacter is directly detected in macaque feces. The Campylobacter was detected in water and soil samples as well, which increases pathogen spillover possibility amongst various species intermingling at the sites [51].

The phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences of Campylobacter showed presence of two clades of the bacteria (Fig 3). The phylogenetic tree in our study also revealed more or less identical (S4 Fig in S2 File) structure of bacteria clades as found in the study published by Wilkinson D. A., et.al. (2018) [52]. That study used more elaborate whole genome sequence data, and the fact that our study also produced similar Campylobacter clade structure using only 16S rRNA fragment sequence data, validates the utility and accuracy of our technique.

The Clade-1 isolates clustered together with the newly reported species of Campylobacter (Candidatus C. infans), though neighboring clades consisted of other species as well (Fig 3). However, these isolates of other species in the Clade-1 could have been misidentified by the authors, as the K2P distances of isolates found in Clade-1 have close distances to Candidatus C. infans, (S2 Fig in S2 File) inferring that all isolates in the Clade-1 could possibly be identified as this newly discovered species. Previous cases of Candidatus C. infans have been isolated from infant in the sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and from a human sample in the Netherlands [53]. All the Campylobacter spp. isolated in this study originated from monkey fecal samples, raising a serious concern of spillover to other species including humans [54, 55]. Furthermore, an isolate from India found in the Clade-1 was isolated from sheep alluding to strong evidence to support zoonotic plasticity.The Clade-2 contained three remaining sequences from this study. The clustering of C. helveticus, C. upsaliensis and C. troglodytes in a nearby clades could also be observed as sister clades to the Clade-2 isolates. Our three isolates formed separate monophyletic clades (Fig 3) within the Clade-2 indicating the findings of a probable new species or sub-species of the Campylobacter, which was further supported by the K2P pairwise distance with the closest distance of 0.0267 being with C. helveticus, which is similar to the values of the Clade-1 isolates against C. hyointestinalis subsp. lawsonii (HQ628645). However, further investigation with a longer 16S rRNA gene fragment or whole genome sequences may be required to properly verify the inferred result.

Samples were collected from two different sites separated by dense human settlements- almost making them wooded islands within the urban landscape. The Campylobacter isolates from both the sites clustered together in either one of the identified clades (Fig 3). This result suggests there might be some complex interactions taking place between these two animal populations. Since monkeys from these two sites rarely intermingle, the disease spread might be limited as well. However, humans might help spread Campylobacter between these two populations of monkeys.

C. hyointestinalis is a commensal organism of pigs whereas C. helveticus is commensal in dogs and cats [52]. Campylobacter can potentially infect monkeys from these animals, and/or through humans as intermediate hosts. Considering other species such as birds, cats and dogs are also interacting closely with the monkeys at these two sites, the Campylobacter reservoir, spillover and transmission are truly playing out in One Health dynamics. Hence, this study highlights the importance of One Health approach to understand and prevent emerging, re-emerging and prevalent infectious diseases.

Diarrheal diseases are one of the most devastating public health concerns in Nepal, especially in a densely populated metropolitan cities like Kathmandu. Campylobacter might be one of the important contributing pathogens in diarrheal outbreaks-both in humans and animals (monkeys). We hope that our study will draw attention to this problem and help public health experts in formulating a plan to cure and prevent this kind of outbreak in macaques, thereby, preventing spillover to humans.

Supporting information

S1 File. All the supplementary tables containing additional data.

(DOCX)

S2 File. All the supplementary Figures containing additional data.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images. Raw gel images.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Pashupati Area Development Trust and the Federation of Swoyambhu Management and Conservation for providing the permit and facilitating this research. We would also like to thank PREDICT Consortium for their assistance during various phases of the project. We would also like to show our gratitude to the Metropolitan City of Kathmandu for helping us with the study. Finally, we thank all the staffs of Intrepid Nepal including Biswo Parakram Shrestha, Samita Raut, Dhiraj Puri for assisting in field sampling and lab experiments during the course of this study.

Data Availability

DNA sequences are available in the NCBI Genbank with accession number MZ068100 to MZ068112. All the data are included in the paper including supplementary information.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Wassenaar TM, Newell DG. Genotyping of Campylobacter spp. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66: 1. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.1.1-9.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Huang H, Garcia MM, Huang H, Garcia MM. Isolation and Identification of Campylobacter spp. from Food and Food-Related Environment. Campylobacter. 2022. [cited 30 Dec 2022]. doi: 10.5772/INTECHOPEN.103114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Andrade MCR, Gabeira SC de O, Abreu-Lopes D, Esteves WTC, Vilardo M de CB, Thomé J, et al. Circulation of Campylobacter spp. in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) held in captivity: a longitudinal study. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2007;102: 53–57. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762007000100008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Komba EV. Human and Animal Thermophilic Campylobacter infections in East African countries: Epidemiology and Antibiogram. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2017;1. doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.2017.01.000411 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weis AM, Storey DB, Taff CC, Townsend AK, Huang BC, Kong NT, et al. Genomic comparison of Campylobacter spp. and their potential for zoonotic transmission between birds, primates, and livestock. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82: 7165–7175. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01746-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Devaux CA, Mediannikov O, Medkour H, Raoult D. Infectious disease risk across the growing human-non human primate interface: A review of the evidence. Front Public Heal. 2019; 305. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Acharya KP, Wilson RT. Antimicrobial resistance in Nepal. Front Med. 2019;6: 105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bhattarai D, Bhattarai N, Osti R. Prevalence of Thermophilic Campylobacter Isolated from Water Used in Slaughter House of Kathmandu and Ruphendehi District, Nepal. Int J Appl Sci Biotechnol. 2019;7: 75–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gautam A, Neupane S, Kaphle K. Campylobacter Infection and its Sensitivity in Retail Pork. Int J Appl Sci Biotechnol. 2020;8: 132–139. doi: 10.3126/IJASBT.V8I2.29587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Neupane R, Kaphle K. Bacteriological quality of poultry meat in Nepal. Int J Vet Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abebe E, Gugsa G, Ahmed M. Review on major food-borne zoonotic bacterial pathogens. J Trop Med. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/4674235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pathak A, Kaphle K. Dog: A Friendly Pathway to Zoonoses. Nepal Vet J. 2019;36: 170–177. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Adhikari R, Bagale KB. Risk of Zoonoses among livestock farmers in Nepal. J Heal Promot. 2019;7: 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Misawa N, Shinohara S, Satoh H, Itoh H, Shinohara K, Shimomura K, et al. Isolation of Campylobacter species from zoo animals and polymerase chain reaction-based random amplified polymorphism DNA analysis. Vet Microbiol. 2000;71: 59–68. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(99)00156-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ngotho M, Ngure RM, Kamau DM, Kagira JM, Gichuki C, Farah IO, et al. A fatal outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni enteritis in a colony of vervet monkeys in Kenya. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Keita MB, Hamad I, Bittar F. Looking in apes as a source of human pathogens. Microb Pathog. 2014;77: 149–154. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2014.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rhoades N, Barr T, Hendrickson S, Prongay K, Haertel A, Gill L, et al. Maturation of the infant rhesus macaque gut microbiome and its role in the development of diarrheal disease. Genome Biol. 2019;20: 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Clayton JB, Danzeisen JL, Johnson TJ, Trent AM, Hayer SS, Murphy T, et al. Characterization of Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter upsaliensis, and a novel Campylobacter sp. in a captive non-human primate zoological collection. J Med Primatol. 2018/12/12. 2019;48: 114–122. doi: 10.1111/jmp.12393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sowerby N. Identification and genotyping of Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from a captive wildlife population in New Zealand. Auckland University of Technology. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tegner C, Sunil-Chandra NP, Wijesooriya W, Perera BV, Hansson I, Fahlman Å. Detection, Identification, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. from Free-ranging Nonhuman Primates in Sri Lanka. J Wildl Dis. 2019;55: 879–884. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chon JW, Hyeon JY, Yim JH, Kim JH, Song KY, Seo KH. Improvement of modified charcoal-cefoperazone-deoxycholate agar by supplementation with a high concentration of polymyxin B for detection of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli in chicken carcass rinses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78: 1624–1626. doi: 10.1128/AEM.07180-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kulkarni SP, Lever S, Logan JMJ, Lawson AJ, Stanley J, Shafi MS. Detection of campylobacter species: a comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction based methods. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55: 749. doi: 10.1136/jcp.55.10.749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Adams N, Dhimal M, Mathews S, Iyer V, Murtugudde R, Liang X-Z, et al. El Niño Southern Oscillation, monsoon anomaly, and childhood diarrheal disease morbidity in Nepal. PNAS Nexus. 2022;1: pgac032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chalise MK. Primate Census in Kathmandu and West Parts of Nepal. J Nat Hist Mus. 2008;23: 60–64. doi: 10.3126/JNHM.V23I0.1840 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chalise MK. Fragmented Primate Population of Nepal. Primates Fragm Complex Resil. 2013; 329–356. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8839-2_22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Baral K. Conservation and threat to selected monkey species in Nepal compared to selected species in Tanzania. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.OpenStreetMap. [cited 30 Nov 2022]. Available: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
  • 28.Open Data Nepal. [cited 30 Nov 2022]. Available: https://opendatanepal.com/
  • 29.Linton D, Owen RJ, Stanley J. Rapid identification by PCR of the genus Campylobacter and of five Campylobacter species enteropathogenic for man and animals. Res Microbiol. 1996;147: 707–718. doi: 10.1016/s0923-2508(97)85118-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bouckaert R, Vaughan TG, Barido-Sottani J, Duchêne S, Fourment M, Gavryushkina A, et al. BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15: e1006650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gorkiewicz G, Feierl G, Zechner R, Zechner EL. Transmission of Campylobacter hyointestinalis from a pig to a human. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40: 2601–2605. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.7.2601-2605.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32: 1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Larsson A. AliView: a fast and lightweight alignment viewer and editor for large datasets. Bioinformatics. 2014;30: 3276–3278. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bouckaert RR, Drummond AJ. bModelTest: Bayesian phylogenetic site model averaging and model comparison. BMC Evol Biol. 2017;17: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/S12862-017-0890-6/FIGURES/6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA. Posterior Summarization in Bayesian Phylogenetics Using Tracer 1.7. Syst Biol. 2018;67: 901–904. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syy032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rambaut A. Figtree v1.4.4. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38: 3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Magouras I, Brookes VJ, Jori F, Martin A, Pfeiffer DU, Dürr S. Emerging zoonotic diseases: Should we rethink the animal–human interface? Front Vet Sci. 2020; 748. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.582743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Masila NM, Ross KE, Gardner MG, Whiley H. Zoonotic and Public Health Implications of Campylobacter Species and Squamates (Lizards, Snakes and Amphisbaenians). Pathogens. 2020;9: 799. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9100799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hlashwayo DF, Sigaúque B, Bila CG. Epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp. in animals in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2020;6: e03537. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28: 687–720. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00006-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ghimire L, Singh DK, Basnet HB, Bhattarai RK, Dhakal S, Sharma B. Prevalence, antibiogram and risk factors of thermophilic campylobacter spp. in dressed porcine carcass of Chitwan, Nepal. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14: 85. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-85 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bhattarai V, Sharma S, Rijal KR, Banjara MR. Co-infection with Campylobacter and rotavirus in less than 5 year old children with acute gastroenteritis in Nepal during 2017–2018. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20: 1–8. doi: 10.1186/S12887-020-1966-9/FIGURES/2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Murphy H, Bodhidatta L, Sornsakrin S, Khadka B, Pokhrel A, Shakya S, et al. Traveler’s diarrhea in Nepal-changes in etiology and antimicrobial resistance. J Travel Med. 2019;26. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taz054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pandey P, Bodhidatta L, Lewis M, Murphy H, Shlim DR, Cave W, et al. Travelers’ diarrhea in Nepal: an update on the pathogens and antibiotic resistance. J Travel Med. 2011;18: 102–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8305.2010.00475.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.CDC. Centers for disease control and prevention, national center for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases (NCEZID), Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases (DFWED). 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.do Nascimento Veras H, da Silva Quetz J, Lima IFN, Rodrigues TS, Havt A, Rey LC, et al. Combination of different methods for detection of Campylobacter spp. in young children with moderate to severe diarrhea. J Microbiol Methods. 2016;128: 7–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.06.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ricke SC, Feye KM, Chaney WE, Shi Z, Pavlidis H, Yang Y. Developments in rapid detection methods for the detection of foodborne campylobacter in the United States. Front Microbiol. 2019; 3280. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.El Baaboua A, El Maadoudi M, Bouyahya A, Kounnoun A, Bougtaib H, Omar B, et al. A REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND GAPS ABOUT CAMPYLOBACTER METHODS: FROM CULTURE TO CHARACTERIZATION. J Microbiol Biotechnol food Sci. 2022;11: e4154–e4154. doi: 10.55251/JMBFS.4154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Couturier BA, Couturier MR, Kalp KJ, Fisher MA. Detection of non-jejuni and -coli Campylobacter Species from Stool Specimens with an Immunochromatographic Antigen Detection Assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51: 1935. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03208-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Facciolà A, Riso R, Avventuroso E, Visalli G, Delia SA, Laganà P. Campylobacter: from microbiology to prevention. J Prev Med Hyg. 2017;58: E79. Available: /pmc/articles/PMC5584092/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wilkinson DA O ’Donnell AJ, Akhter RN, Fayaz A, MacK HJ, Rogers LE, et al. Updating the genomic taxonomy and epidemiology of Campylobacter hyointestinalis. Sci Reports 2018 81. 2018;8: 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20889-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Flipse J, Duim B, Wallinga JA, de Wijkerslooth LRH, Graaf-van Bloois L van der, Timmerman AJ, et al. A Case of Persistent Diarrhea in a Man with the Molecular Detection of Various Campylobacter species and the First Isolation of candidatus Campylobacter infans. Pathogens. 2020;9: 1003. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9121003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Delahoy MJ, Wodnik B, McAliley L, Penakalapati G, Swarthout J, Freeman MC, et al. Pathogens transmitted in animal feces in low-and middle-income countries. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018;221: 661–676. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Himsworth CG, Skinner S, Chaban B, Jenkins E, Wagner BA, Harms NJ, et al. Multiple zoonotic pathogens identified in canine feces collected from a remote Canadian indigenous community. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;83: 338. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dwij Raj Bhatta

21 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-17357Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu ValleyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dwij Raj Bhatta, PhD

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. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

This important research on Campylobacter spp. and role in epidemic diarrhoea in Primates needs minor revision! The authors are suggested to answer queries of reviewers& adress comments from editor! In the abstract section highlighted text is confusing, sentence be changed! commensal flora of which animal species ??chicken?

In introduction part:mention types of standard cultural methods and biochemical identification ,confirmation of these microaerophilic bacteria briefly with proper reference ! Whether the molecular methods applied in the present research is enough to claim novel species? Why cultural methods not applied first to identify isolates and followed by Sequencing of such isolates?

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

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: 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: This study reports the novel strains of Campylobacter causing diarrhoeal outbreaks in monkeys in two holy sites of Kathmandu valley.

Major comments:

1.In abstract, the authors have mentioned “Opportunistic diarrheal samples of monkeys were analyzed to ………………” It is better to write diarrhoeal samples only instead of opportunistic samples.

2.In abstract, your result highlights the detection of Campylobacter in soil and water samples but methodology part is missing. Please mention about collection and processing of soil and water samples

3. In methods section, line 99, the authors have mentioned water samples were collected form ponds. In contrast to this, in line 102, they have mentioned 5 water samples from river and drinking water sources. Please write exactly which samples you have collected. Also elaborate on the collection and transportation of water samples.

4.In figure 1, please show the sample collection sites for water and soil samples

Minor comments:

Please correct the grammatical errors in the text such as

1.Line 81: Please rearrange the sentence.

2.Line 100: Please mention the name of the laboratory instead of our lab.

3.Line 111: Please write the symbol µ instead of u

4.Line 111-113: Please complete the sentence “ The cycling…….4°C.”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written. Its a novel finding in Nepal and authors have used adequate advanced techniques for the laboratory experiment. However, only animal and environmental samples are included and human samples are not included in this study. Therefore the role of novel strain of the organism in human infections needs further research work with inclusive of human samples. Language of the manuscript at same places needs revision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17357 (1).pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0270778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270778.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Nov 2022

Reviewer #1: This study reports the novel strains of Campylobacter causing diarrhoeal outbreaks in monkeys in two holy sites of Kathmandu valley.

Major Comment 1 In abstract, the authors have mentioned “Opportunistic diarrheal samples of monkeys were analyzed to ………………” It is better to write diarrhoeal samples only instead of opportunistic samples. It has been replaced with Diarrheal samples.

Major Comment 2 In abstract, your result highlights the detection of Campylobacter in soil and water samples but methodology part is missing. Please mention about collection and processing of soil and water samples We used same protocol to process samples (soil, water), we added the information in line 107.

Major Comment 3 In methods section, line 99, the authors have mentioned water samples were collected form ponds. In contrast to this, in line 102, they have mentioned 5 water samples from river and drinking water sources. Please write exactly which samples you have collected. Also elaborate on the collection and transportation of water samples. We have now clarified the water sample collection process (pond at Swoyambhu /river at Pashupatinath) in line 99 and (pond/river) in line 99.

Major Comment 4 In figure 1, please show the sample collection sites for water and soil samples. This has now been updated.

Minor Comment 5 Please correct the grammatical errors in the text such as

Line 81: Please rearrange the sentence.

The sentence has been restructured.

Minor Comment 6 Line 100: Please mention the name of the laboratory instead of our lab.

Our lab has been replaced with the Intrepid Nepal Lab. In line 101.

Minor Comment 7 Line 111: Please write the symbol µ instead of u

u has been replaced with symbol µ.

Minor Comment 8 Line 111-113: Please complete the sentence “ The cycling…….4°C.” The sentence has been completed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dwij Raj Bhatta

28 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-17357R1Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu ValleyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dwij Raj Bhatta, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Please add a paragraph in introduction section /elaborate, by mentioning name of all species of a genus Capylobacter as per official nomenclature &mention determinative morphological biochemical characteristics, host range and medical importance of all species

2. In introduction part: briefly mention types of standard cultural methods and biochemical identification, confirmation of these microaerophilic bacteria with proper reference!

3. Whether the molecular methods applied in the present research is enough to claim novel species? Why cultural methods not applied first to identify isolates and followed by Sequencing of such isolates

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0270778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270778.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Dec 2022

Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1: This study reports the novel strains of Campylobacter causing diarrhoeal outbreaks in monkeys in two holy sites of Kathmandu valley.

Major Comment 1 In abstract, the authors have mentioned “Opportunistic diarrheal samples of monkeys were analyzed to ………………” It is better to write diarrhoeal samples only instead of opportunistic samples. It has been replaced with Diarrheal samples.

Major Comment 2 In abstract, your result highlights the detection of Campylobacter in soil and water samples but methodology part is missing. Please mention about collection and processing of soil and water samples We used same protocol to process samples (soil, water), we added the information in line 107.

Major Comment 3 In methods section, line 99, the authors have mentioned water samples were collected form ponds. In contrast to this, in line 102, they have mentioned 5 water samples from river and drinking water sources. Please write exactly which samples you have collected. Also elaborate on the collection and transportation of water samples. We have now clarified the water sample collection process (pond at Swoyambhu /river at Pashupatinath) in line 99 and (pond/river) in line 99.

Major Comment 4 In figure 1, please show the sample collection sites for water and soil samples. This has now been updated.

Minor Comment 5 Please correct the grammatical errors in the text such as

Line 81: Please rearrange the sentence.

The sentence has been restructured.

Minor Comment 6 Line 100: Please mention the name of the laboratory instead of our lab.

Our lab has been replaced with the Intrepid Nepal Lab. In line 101.

Minor Comment 7 Line 111: Please write the symbol µ instead of u

u has been replaced with symbol µ.

Minor Comment 8 Line 111-113: Please complete the sentence “ The cycling…….4°C.” The sentence has been completed.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written. Its a novel finding in Nepal and authors have used adequate advanced techniques for the laboratory experiment. However, only animal and environmental samples are included and human samples are not included in this study. Therefore the role of novel strain of the organism in human infections needs further research work with inclusive of human samples. Language of the manuscript at same places needs revision

Response: The language has been updated at some places in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Dwij Raj Bhatta

3 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-17357R2Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu ValleyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dwij Raj Bhatta, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Need to address specific comment from academic editor made on their revision 1 manuscript previously sent to authors !! Unfortunately they have submitted manuscript again as revision 2 but it does not satisfy editor's comments and questions previously sent!

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0270778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270778.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


5 Jan 2023

The comments made by the Editor was addressed in our previous submission by making minor changes to the manuscript and reasons for not addressing his suggestions entirely were explained in the rebuttal letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

Decision Letter 3

Dwij Raj Bhatta

9 Jan 2023

Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu Valley

PONE-D-22-17357R3

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

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,

Dwij Raj Bhatta, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The reaserch gives important information on campylobacter species that were causative agent of dirrhoea in monkeys in Nepal and confirmed by WGST ! Revision 3 manuscript with track change has been reviewed and rebuttal letter also viewed! ! Revision 3 of the manusctipt be published along with supporting informations and author explanations !

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dwij Raj Bhatta

16 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-17357R3

Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu Valley

Dear Dr. Karmacharya:

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 Dwij Raj Bhatta

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. All the supplementary tables containing additional data.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. All the supplementary Figures containing additional data.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images. Raw gel images.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17357 (1).pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    DNA sequences are available in the NCBI Genbank with accession number MZ068100 to MZ068112. All the data are included in the paper including supplementary information.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES