Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 14, 2020
Decision Letter - Wenbin Tan, Editor

PONE-D-20-38159

Using symptom-based case predictions to identify host genetic factors that contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. van Blokland,

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 Mar 28 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,

Wenbin Tan

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.We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium (The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative,). In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7.Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"ETC, KMSB, SR, AB, SW, FT, XW, JMR, YWL, JTL, and NLW are employees of Helix. All other authors declare no financial or non-financial conflict of interest."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Helix

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Editor: The manuscript performed a GWAS analysis to show possible COVID-19 associated SNPs. However, the significance of the results was substantially undermined due to (1) the very limited confirmed positive cases of COVID-19 in the study (n=168), and (2) the low sensitivity of Mennis COVID-19 prediction model. Based on the current available data of COVID-19 cases, a substantial increase in confirmed COVID-19 cases in the study will help provide a more reliable conclusion.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes mainly negative results from a prediction model based on the symptoms to a GWAS analysis. The study makes almost no suggestive conclusions but is important to publish these results nonetheless. Most of my comments would rather focus on the "what I wish were done" rather than requirements for publication since given the methodology and results and the absence of any strong conclusions, the statements made are not unreasonable.

- I found the number of cases in this study too small. This is a limitation of the data, however, I think there could me more work done to increase the cohort given the widespread access to COVID-19 patient data.

- The racial diversity is quite lacking in the data to consider the effort done in GWAS analysis of high value.

- I do not understand why a conversion into binary variables was required for each of the variables in preprocessing. A trainable model is capable of dealing with ordinal variables without any conversion. Is it due to the heterogeneity between symptom reporting in different data sets?

The following comments are requirements for clarification of the methodology

- Logistic regression models are ML models, which means that there is a training phase. A complete description of the model hyperparameters and training procedures (training/test splits) is required to assess the validity of the model.

- There are multiple mathematical/statistical notions that need to be properly typed (italic p for p-value... etc.)

Revision 1

We are grateful for the useful feedback of reviewers and thank the editor for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. In a point-by-point manner, we answer the reviewer's comments in the "Response to Reviewers" document and hope that this addresses any remaining concerns for publication in PLOS ONE.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_PONE-D-20-38159.docx
Decision Letter - Wenbin Tan, Editor

PONE-D-20-38159R1

Using symptom-based case predictions to identify host genetic factors that contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. van Blokland,

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 Jul 18 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,

Wenbin Tan

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.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports symptom-based predictive phenotypes as proxies for COVID-19 to understand genetic susceptibility to COVID-19. The strategy is well thought out and there are no problems. However, it is not clear whether or not differences due to the genetic background of the population have been taken into account. Are the eight genome-wide significantly different variants for viral infections selected from the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog from a valid population for this comparison? Are GWAS meta-analyses of cohorts containing different genetic backgrounds valid? Should the current findings be considered valid only for specific populations? For example, rs5798227 associated with COVID-19 seems to be present in most Asians. It would be better if there was mention of the differences in genetic background among populations and how this affects the prediction model.

Revision 2

PONE-D-20-38159

Authors: van Blokland et al.

Response to reviewers

We thank the editors and and reviewers for taking the time to consider our manuscript. Please see below point-by-point answer to the comments raised by the academic editor and reviewer.

"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."

We have updated reference 11 from the following

Mc Intyre K, Lanting P, Deelen P, Wiersma H, Vonk JM, Ori AP, et al. The Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort: a questionnaire-based study to investigate COVID-19 infection and its health and societal impacts in a Dutch population-based cohort. medRxiv. 2020 Jun 24;2020.06.19.20135426.

To the updated reference:

Mc Intyre K, Lanting P, Deelen P, Wiersma HH, Vonk JM, et al. Lifelines COVID-19 cohort: investigating COVID-19 infection and its health and societal impacts in a Dutch population-based cohort. BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 17;11(3):e044474. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044474.

"Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports symptom-based predictive phenotypes as proxies for COVID-19 to understand genetic susceptibility to COVID-19. The strategy is well thought out and there are no problems. However, it is not clear whether or not differences due to the genetic background of the population have been taken into account. Are the eight genome-wide significantly different variants for viral infections selected from the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog from a valid population for this comparison? Are GWAS meta-analyses of cohorts containing different genetic backgrounds valid? Should the current findings be considered valid only for specific populations? For example, rs5798227 associated with COVID-19 seems to be present in most Asians. It would be better if there was mention of the differences in genetic background among populations and how this affects the prediction model."

Thank you for your remark, this is a valid consideration with two potential implications. The first is that the GWASs on the other viral infections might have been performed on non-European populations. If that were to be the case, a direct comparison of lead or top variants might not be straightforward. To ensure that this is not the case for the overlapping variants between our predicted COVID19 GWAS and the other viral infections we double checked this. All these GWASes are primarily conducted on Europeans. The cohorts that we used are also primarily of European descent so these lead variants can be compared, and a meta-analysis could be conducted without special considerations. We have included this statement in the manuscript in the description of Supplementary Figure 2.

Secondly, there could indeed be a difference in minor allele frequencies among different populations. This could indicate that some populations might be slightly more or less susceptible to an infection. However the association is still relevant to other populations, this is extensively discussed here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PONE-D-20-38159-vanBlokland_20210628.docx
Decision Letter - Wenbin Tan, Editor

Using symptom-based case predictions to identify host genetic factors that contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility

PONE-D-20-38159R2

Dear Dr. van Blokland,

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,

Wenbin Tan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Wenbin Tan, Editor

PONE-D-20-38159R2

Using symptom-based case predictions to identify host genetic factors that contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility

Dear Dr. van Blokland:

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. Wenbin Tan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .