Production of a rabbit monoclonal antibody for highly sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus and related viruses.

Citrus mosaic virus (CiMV) is one of the causal viruses of citrus mosaic disease in satsuma mandarins (Citrus unshiu). Prompt detection of trees infected with citrus mosaic disease is important for preventing the spread of this disease. Although rabbit monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) exhibit high specificity and affinity, their applicability is limited by technical difficulties associated with the hybridoma-based technology used for raising these mAbs. Here, we demonstrate a feasible CiMV detection system using a specific rabbit mAb against CiMV coat protein. A conserved peptide fragment of the small subunit of CiMV coat protein was designed and used to immunize rabbits. Antigen-specific antibody-producing cells were identified by the immunospot array assay on a chip method. After cloning of variable regions in heavy or light chain by RT-PCR from these cells, a gene set of 33 mAbs was constructed and these mAbs were produced using Expi293F cells. Screening with the AlphaScreen system revealed eight mAbs exhibiting strong interaction with the antigen peptide. From subsequent sequence analysis, they were grouped into three mAbs denoted as No. 4, 9, and 20. Surface plasmon resonance analysis demonstrated that the affinity of these mAbs for the antigen peptide ranged from 8.7 × 10-10 to 5.5 × 10-11 M. In addition to CiMV, mAb No. 9 and 20 could detect CiMV-related viruses in leaf extracts by ELISA. Further, mAb No. 20 showed a high sensitivity to CiMV and CiMV-related viruses, simply by dot blot analysis. The anti-CiMV rabbit mAbs obtained in this study are envisioned to be extremely useful for practical applications of CiMV detection, such as in a virus detection kit.

Introduction

Satsuma dwarf virus (SDV) and SDV-related viruses cause serious diseases in satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc.) [1]. The satsuma mandarin trees infected by these viruses become dwarfed, develop boat- and/or spoon-shaped leaves, and leads to reduced sugar content in the fruits [1,2]. Infection by these viruses degrades quality of the fruits and causes serious economic burden [3]. These viruses are believed to be transmitted through grafting and soil [1,4]. At present, there are no available measures for removing these viruses from infected trees. Therefore, early detection of infected trees and their elimination are important, particularly for minimizing the economic burden associated with these viral infections.

SDV and SDV-related viruses have icosahedral virions containing a bipartite positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome (RNA1; 7.0 kb, RNA2; 5.4 kb) [1]. All virions consist of two kinds of coat proteins (large component; 42 kDa and small component; 22 kDa) encoded by RNA2 [5,6]. SDV and SDV-related viruses have been diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [1,7]. Since PCR and ELISA need specialized techniques and expensive equipment and reagents, an immunochromatographic assay (ICA) has been developed for detection of these viruses during field samples. In particular, an ICA system developed by Kusano et al. is now commercially available and has emerged as an excellent diagnostic system due to its higher sensitivity and reliability [8]. This system can be used to diagnose not only SDV but also SDV-related viruses, such as citrus mosaic virus (CiMV) and navel orange infectious mottling virus (NIMV). However, novel CiMV isolates that are difficult to detect with this system have been recently reported [9,10]. One of these isolates, CiMV Az-1(B291), detected in Ehime prefecture, Japan has led to widespread infections and serious economic damage to satsuma mandarin cultivation [11]. A new diagnosis system for the detection of these isolates needs to be urgently developed.

To develop a diagnosis system such as ICA kit, development of highly specific and high affinity monoclonal antibody (mAb) is essential. In general, mAbs are isolated by a mouse hybridoma-based technology [12]. Rabbit mAbs are known to show high specificity and affinity [13,14]. However, hybridoma-based technology for raising rabbit mAbs is not standardized due to associated technical challenges. The antibody-secreting cell screening system using immunospot array assay on a chip (ISAAC) method has emerged as an efficient method for the rapid isolation of mAbs [15,16]. In this method, a single lymphocyte secreting the desired antibody can be isolated with ease and rapidity by detecting target cells on a microwell array chip. Since the ISAAC method does not require the generation of hybridoma cells, it is possible to obtain human and rabbit mAbs [14-16]. In this study, we isolated rabbit mAbs against CiMV Az-1(B291) by using the ISAAC method. Several rabbit mAbs that recognize CiMV were obtained by the AlphaScreen-screening system. These mAbs were further characterized with respect to their affinity and specificity for CiMV and related viruses by AlphaScreen, immunoblot, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), ELISA, and dot blot analysis.

Materials and methods

Plasmid construction

All primer sequences used in this study are listed in S1 Table. pEU-based expression vectors, including pEU-E01-GW, pEU-E01-bls-GW, and pEU-E01-bls-GST-GW were used for wheat germ cell-free protein synthesis. pcDNA3.4 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) was used a vector for mammalian cell expression.

Antibody expression vector was constructed using inverse PCR and In-Fusion® HD Cloning Kit (Takara Bio, Otsu, Japan). Vectors for cell-free synthesis of CiMV coat protein and antigen peptide sequence-fused GST protein were made by using Gateway technology (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA). Substitution of amino acids in the antigen peptide sequence was carried out using the PrimeSTAR® Mutagenesis Basal Kit (Takara Bio, Otsu, Japan).

Isolation of anti-CiMV coat protein rabbit mAbs by ISAAC

Rabbit experiments were approved by the Committee on Animal Experiments at the University of Toyama (2015MED-11). We immunized 12- to 13-week-old white New Zealand rabbits (Sankyo Lab, Tokyo, Japan) subcutaneously with 0.5 mg antigen peptide conjugated with keyhole limpet hemocyanin in complete Freund’s adjuvant. Two, four, six, and eight weeks after primary immunization, we boosted the rabbit subcutaneously with 1 mg antigen peptide in complete Freund’s adjuvant. One week after the final boost, the rabbits were euthanized by administration of xylazine (35 mg/kg) and ketamine (5 mg/kg). Thereafter, the spleen was taken out from the rabbits. We collected cells from spleen and isolated rabbit IgG+ cells with rabbit IgG-specific antibody-conjugated microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) using an autoMACS® Pro Separator (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. ISAAC was carried out as described in our previous report with slight modifications [17]. The surface of the ISAAC chip was treated with PBS-diluted rabbit IgG-specific antibody (MP Biomedicals, Irvine, CA, USA) for 2 h at room temperature. After blocking with 0.01% Biolipidure® (NOF Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) for 15 min at room temperature, cells were arrayed on the chip and incubated for 3 h to trap the secreted IgG. The chip was then treated with the biotinylated antigen peptide, followed by treatment with Cy3-conjugated streptavidin (Sigma-Aldrich Japan, Tokyo, Japan). After cells were stained with 1 mM Oregon Green (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA), antibody-secreting cells were collected using a micromanipulator (TransferMan NK2, Eppendorf Japan, Tokyo, Japan) under a BX51WI fluorescence microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Isolation of mRNA and amplification of cDNA fragments of IgG were performed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as described previously [15,18].

Production of anti-CiMV coat protein antibody

cDNAs for heavy and light chains of the anti-CiMV coat protein antibody were subcloned into the pcDNA3.4 expression vector using PCR and In-Fusion Reaction. Each anti-CiMV coat protein antibody was expressed using the Expi293F Expression System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The antibodies secreted in the culture medium were purified by Protein G Sepharose 4 Fast Flow antibody purification resin (GE Healthcare Japan, Hino, Japan), followed by buffer exchange using a PD-10 column (GE Healthcare Japan, Hino, Japan). Biotinylation of the antibody was carried out with a biotin labeling kit (Dojindo Laboratories, Masuki, Japan).

AlphaScreen

All recombinant proteins were synthesized using a wheat germ cell-free synthesis system (Cell-free Sciences, Matsuyama, Japan). Biotinylation at the biotin ligation site (bls) was carried out enzymatically using BirA biotin ligase [19]. All AlphaScreen reactions were conducted in an Optiplate-384 titer plate (PerkinElmer Japan, Yokohama, Japan). AlphaScreen chemiluminescence signal was detected using the EnVision 2105 Multimode Plate Reader (PerkinElmer Japan, Yokohama, Japan).

Binding between the anti-CiMV coat protein antibody and antigen peptide was studied as follows. One μl of biotinylated antigen peptide was mixed with 22 μl of AlphaScreen buffer containing 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.01% Tween 20, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mg/ml BSA, 0.1 μl of streptavidin-conjugated AlphaScreen donor beads, and 0.1 μl of protein A-conjugated AlphaScreen acceptor beads. Subsequently, 2 μl of the culture supernatant was added to the mixture. After incubation at 26°C for 1 h, AlphaScreen signal was acquired.

The analysis of binding between anti-CiMV coat protein antibody and CiMV coat protein or antigen peptide sequence-fused GST protein was carried out as follows. One μl of CiMV coat protein or antigen peptide sequence-fused GST protein and 1 μl of 0.03 mg/ml anti-CiMV coat protein antibody were mixed with 10 μl of AlphaScreen buffer containing 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.01% Tween 20, 100 mM NaCl, and 1 mg/ml BSA, and incubated at 26°C for 1 h. CiMV coat protein and antigen peptide sequence-fused GST protein were biotinylated during the cell-free reaction. Subsequently, 13 μl of detection mixture containing 0.1 μl of streptavidin-conjugated AlphaScreen donor beads and 0.1 μl of protein A-conjugated AlphaScreen acceptor beads in AlphaScreen buffer was added to the mixture. After incubation at 26°C for 1 h, AlphaScreen chemiluminescence signal was measured.

BIAcore assay

SPR experiments were conducted on a BIAcore X100 system (GE Healthcare Japan, Hino, Japan). HBS-EP+ (10 mM Hepes-NaOH (pH 7.4), 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween 20, and 3 mM EDTA) was used as a running buffer. The temperature of the flow cells was kept at 25°C during the assay. To determine affinity between the antigen peptide and mAbs, we conducted a single-cycle kinetics assay. Concentration of Protein G-purified antibodies was determined with NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA). The biotinylated antigen peptide was immobilized on Sensor Chip SA (GE Healthcare Japan, Hino, Japan) at less than 3 RU. Then the antibody was injected at a range of concentrations. Flow rate was 30 μl/min, contact time was 120 sec, and dissociation time was 180 sec. The affinity parameter was calculated by using BiaEvaluation software.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Virus samples (CiMV Az-1(B291), SDV S-58, and NIMV NI-1) were prepared from leaves of cape lemon trees that virus infection is maintained in Fruit tree research center, Ehime research institute of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. The existence of viruses in samples was confirmed by RT-PCR analysis according to previously described method [7]. As a negative control, we also prepared a virus-free sample from non-infected leaves. Nunc-Immuno™ MicroWell™ 96 well solid plates (Sigma-Aldrich Japan) were used. Virus samples (100 μl) were injected to wells of the micro plates and incubated for 16 h at 4°C. After blocking with 50 μl of skim milk in PBS with 0.2% Tween 20, 50 μl of antibody (0.01mg/ml) was added and incubated for 16 h at 4°C. Antibodies bound to the plate was detected by HRP-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibody.

Dot blot analysis

One μl of leaf extracts was spotted onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes and dried for 5 min. As a negative control, virus-free sample was also spotted. After blocking with 5% skim milk solubilized in a TBST buffer for 1 h, the membrane was treated for 1 h by biotinylated anti-CiMV coat protein mAb (No. 20, 0.001 μg/ml). After three times washing with TBST buffer, the membrane was treated with HRP-conjugated anti-biotin antibody. After the membrane was washed with TBST buffer three times, the antibody was detected with ImmunoStar LD using an ImageQuant LAS 4000 imager.

Statistical analyses

We used Student’s t-test and Tukey test for a two-group comparison and a multiple group comparison, respectively, using a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05.

Results

Isolation of rabbit anti-CiMV mAbs by ISAAC

To obtain anti-CiMV mAbs, we immunized rabbits with a peptide that corresponds to a residue (11 aa) from 475 to 485 in the CiMV coat protein [20]. This region is conserved among the related viruses and predicted to form an outer region of the coat protein. In this study, we selected rabbits for mAb production because rabbit antibodies have high affinity and can be a powerful tool for diagnosis [14]. After sacrifice, anti-CiMV peptide-specific antibody-secreting cells were isolated using immunospot array assay on a chip (ISAAC). By single-cell RT-PCR, 33-pair fragments of the variable region sequences, heavy chain and light chain, were amplified. These fragments were introduced into pcDNA3.4 expression vector, and then corresponding antibodies were produced using Expi293F cultured cells. To evaluate specificity of the mAbs with CiMV peptide, we used AlphaScreen system. In this system, AlphaScreen beads generate chemiluminescence signal when a mAb binds to the CiMV peptide (Fig 1B). Among 33 antibodies, eight mAbs interacted with the CiMV peptide, which was confirmed by AlphaScreen (Fig 1C). These eight mAbs were selected for analysis of the binding ability with the CiMV coat protein synthesized using the cell-free system by AlphaScreen. As shown in Fig 1D, interaction between all eight mAbs and CiMV coat protein was observed. Thus, we analyzed sequences of these mAbs. The results showed that the eight mAbs are classified into three groups. Nucleotide sequences encoding variable region of mAbs No. 3, 4, 10, and 23 and mAbs No. 9, 22, and 33 were identical, respectively, and that of mAb No. 20 was unique. Hence, we selected mAb No. 4, 9, and 20 as representative of each group for further analysis. The interaction of the three mAbs with CiMV coat protein was further tested by immunoblot analysis, but only weak signals were detected (S1 Fig).

Fig 1

Isolation of rabbit mAbs against conserved peptide in CiMV coat protein.

(A) Flow chart of experimental design. (B) Schematic diagram of antibody screening by AlphaScreen. When antibody binds to the peptide as illustrated, AlphaScreen beads trigger chemiluminescence signals. (C) Screening of mAbs against CiMV coat protein by AlphaScreen. Interaction between mAb and biotinylated peptide fragment of CiMV coat protein small subunit was analyzed by AlphaScreen. Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means from two independent experiments. (D) Interaction analysis of mAb with CiMV coat protein by AlphaScreen. Interaction between eight mAbs and biotinylated full-length CiMV coat protein small subunit synthesized by cell-free system was analyzed by AlphaScreen. Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Asterisk indicates significant differences from negative control (** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001, Student’s t-test).

Kinetic assay of anti-CiMV mAbs

To investigate the affinity of the three mAbs obtained in this study toward the CiMV coat protein, we determined their affinity toward the CiMV peptide using surface plasmon resonance (SPR). When 3 RU of biotinylated CiMV peptide was captured on a sensor chip, kinetic analysis from 3 RU yielded KD values (Fig 2). KD value of mAb No. 4, 9, and 20 was 8.7 × 10−10 M (Ka = 5.5 × 105 1/Ms, Kd = 4.8 × 10−4 1/s), 8.2 x 10−11 M (Ka = 5.0 × 106 1/Ms, Kd = 4.1 × 10−4 1/s), and 5.5 x 10−11 M (Ka = 4.7 × 106 1/Ms, Kd = 2.6 × 10−4 1/s), respectively. Comparing among these mAbs, although there were small differences in the dissociation rate constant (Kd), the association rate constant (Ka) of mAb No. 9 and 20 was one order higher than that of mAb No. 4. Hence, KD value of mAb No. 9 and 20 was one order lower than that of mAb No. 4. However, even a KD value of mAb No. 4 was sufficiently low. These results indicate that all three mAbs obtained in this study have high affinity toward the CiMV peptide.

Fig 2

Kinetic assay of anti-CiMV mAbs by SPR.

Kinetics assay was conducted by single cycle analytics. The biotinylated antigen peptide was immobilized on Sensor Chip SA at less than 3 RU. Then, the purified mAb was injected at a series of concentrations. The blue lines represent the real time binding data generated from the injected mAbs while the black lines indicate the global fit of a 1:1 interaction model to each kinetic data set.

Specificity of anti-CiMV mAbs

CiMV belongs to a group of SDV-like viruses [21]. The group consists of Satsuma dwarf virus (SDV), CiMV, Navel orange infectious virus (NIMV), and Hyuganatsu virus (HV) [7]. To investigate the specificity of anti-CiMV mAbs isolated in this study, we analyzed cross reactivity of these mAbs with SDV-like viruses. For this purpose, interaction of these mAbs with SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins was analyzed by AlphaScreen and immunoblot analysis. The CiMV sequence used as an antigenic peptide or the corresponding region of each SDV-like virus was fused to the C-terminus of GST and the SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins were synthesized by the cell-free system. GST-fused sequences of each SDV-like virus are shown in Fig 3A. As shown in Fig 3B, although mAb No. 9 and 20 interacted with all four peptide sequences, mAb No. 4 weakly interacted with only HV peptide. Further, mAb No. 4 and 9 recognized all four peptide sequences in immunoblot analysis, but mAb No. 20 detected only CiMV and SDV peptide sequences (S2 Fig).

Fig 3

Specificity of mAbs against CiMV and related viruses.

(A) Peptide sequences of CiMV and related viruses. Sequence of CiMV represents a part of the coat protein small subunit used as peptide antigen for antibody production. Regions corresponding to CiMV coat protein sequence in other viruses are also shown. Red letters indicate amino acid residues dissimilar to CiMV sequence. Corresponding amino-acid residue number of the first H of each peptide in each coat protein is shown. (B) Interaction analysis of mAbs with SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins by AlphaScreen. Three mAbs and four biotinylated SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins synthesized by the cell-free system were used. Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey test).

Detection of CiMV and SDV-like viruses in infected leaves by anti-CiMV mAbs

To confirm whether mAbs obtained in this study detect CiMV and SDV-like viruses in leaves, the mAbs were evaluated by ELISA and dot blot analysis. For this analysis, leaves of virus-infected cape lemon (Citrus jambhiri) were used, because these viruses can easily amplify in the leaves without growth inhibition. Fig 4A shows photographs of the leaves; the trees were infected with viruses, but symptoms of infection were hardly seen in the leaves. Half of the leaves were used for RT-PCR and extracts from the remaining half were used for ELISA and dot blot analysis. Prior to the experiments, the presence of viruses in these leaves was confirmed by RT-PCR analysis. PCR bands from viruses were detected after 50 cycles in samples from virus-infected leaves, while no band was seen in samples from non-infected leaves (Fig 4B). The amplified bands were sequenced, and the sequence of each sample was confirmed to correspond to that of the expected virus. Using the remaining half of the leaf samples, we detected viruses by ELISA. The results showed that signals were significantly higher in the CiMV and NIMV sections of mAb No. 9 and 20 whereas equivalent or weaker signals were observed in the SDV section of mAb No. 9 and 20 (Fig 4C). In all sections of mAb No. 4, equivalent or weaker signals comparing with virus -free sample were observed (Fig 4C). These results demonstrate that mAb No. 9 and 20 are applicable for CiMV and NIMV detection by ELISA.

Fig 4

Detection of viruses in plant leaves with mAbs.

(A) Rough lemon infected with virus. Leaves from these plants were used in following assays. (B) Detection of viruses by RT-PCR. RNA was extracted from leaves of virus-infected rough lemon and subjected to RT-PCR. Arrowhead indicates obtained amplicons. (C) Detection of viruses by ELISA. Proteins were extracted from leaves of virus-infected rough lemon and were coated onto 96-well plates. The three mAbs (0.01 mg/ml) and HRP-linked anti-rabbit IgG antibody (0.02 μg/ml) were used as primary and secondary antibodies, respectively. The data are shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey test). (D) Detection of viruses in extracts of leaves by dot blot. Proteins were extracted from leaves of virus-infected rough lemon and were spotted onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes. Biotinylated mAb no. 20 (0.001 mg/ml) was used as primary antibody and HRP-linked anti-biotin antibody (0.1 μg/ml) was used as secondary antibody. The representative result is shown. Spot signals from three independent experiments were quantitated using Image J and the obtained signal values were converted to relative values against the signal value of non-diluted virus-free samples. These normalized data were shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars). Asterisk indicates significant differences from virus-free controls (* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001, Student’s t-test).

For SDV-related viruses, a highly sensitive diagnosis kit has been developed [8]. By using this kit, we tried to detect SDV, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate. In fact, this kit detected SDV (S3 Fig). However, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate could not be recognized, indicating the importance of a novel mAb to detect the infection of NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate.

To develop a simplified detection method using dot blot analysis, mAb No. 20 was selected and biotinylated. Diluted samples from leaf extracts were spotted on to the polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. Viruses on these membranes were detected using biotinylated mAb No. 20 and HRP-conjugated anti-biotin antibody as primary and secondary antibodies, respectively. As shown in Fig 4D, signals were detected in all three virus samples even in 100-fold diluted spots. This result indicates that mAb No. 20 has sufficient sensitivity for the simple detection of CiMV, NIMV, and SDV in infected citrus leaves by dot blot analysis.

Discussion

In this study, we obtained rabbit mAbs suitable for virus detection, using a peptide as an antigen by the ISAAC method. Although it is generally difficult to obtain high affinity antibodies using peptides as antigens, our results showed that it is possible to obtain mAbs for practical use using a peptide consisting of as few as 11 amino acid residues by the ISAAC method. Combinatorial utilization of a peptide and the ISAAC method allows obtaining mAbs against proteins that are hard to obtain in sufficient amounts for immunization.

Three kinds of anti-CiMV mAbs with different variable regions were obtained in this study. These mAbs showed higher interaction with antigenic peptides and proteins in AlphaScreen, SPR analysis, and ELISA (Figs 1C, 2, 3B and 4C), but only weak signals were detected in immunoblots (S1 Fig and S2 Fig). These results suggested that the mAbs are conformation-sensitive. This type of antibodies is reported to be hard to recognize unfolded proteins [22]. Among the three mAbs obtained in this study, mAb No. 4 showed low interaction with GST-fused CiMV coat protein fragment (Fig 3B) and native CiMV virus (Fig 4C). These results indicate that mAb No. 4 might recognize the amino terminus-containing region of the CiMV antigenic peptide. On the other hand, the remaining two mAbs, mAb No. 9 and 20, showed high interaction activity with GST-fused CiMV coat protein fragment (Fig 3B) and native CiMV virus (Fig 4C and 4D). Furthermore, the two mAbs recognized not only CiMV, but also SDV-like viruses (Figs 3B, 4C and 4D). These results indicate that mAb No. 9 and 20 can potentially be used to create a virus detection kit based on ICA. The detection kit would contribute to the development of a diagnosis system against CiMV and its related viruses.

In ELISA and dot blot analysis, we used the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate. This isolate recently caused serious damage to citrus farms in the Ehime prefecture, Japan. Although amino-acid sequence of coat protein of SDV (S-58) is 20% different with that of CiMV (ND-1), the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate has further 3.3% different amino-acid sequence of coat protein with CiMV (ND-1). Although a highly sensitive diagnosis kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed [8], it could not detect NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate (S3 Fig). On the other hand, the results of ELISA and dot blot analysis (Fig 4C and 4D) clearly show that the mAbs obtained in this study recognize the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate. By utilizing these mAbs, we expect that a sensitive and simple diagnosis kit against the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate could be developed.

Detection of CiMV coat protein by immunoblotting.

Three mAbs were used for detection of biotinylated GST-fused CiMV coat protein fragment by immunoblotting. Arrowheads indicate GST-fused CiMV coat protein fragment.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Detection of different types of viruses by immunoblotting.

Three mAbs were used for detection of four different biotinylated SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins synthesized using the cell-free system. Arrowheads indicate SDV-like virus peptide-fused GST proteins.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Detection of different types of viruses by a virus detection kit.

Leaves of virus-infected rough lemon were applied to detection assay. Detection of viruses using an SDV detection kit (SDV Chromato, Mizuho Medy Co., Ltd., Tosu, Japan) was performed according to the manufacturer’s instruction.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Primer sequences.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Method of immunoblot analysis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-23810

Production of a rabbit monoclonal antibody for highly sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus and related viruses

PLOS ONE

Dear Akira Nozawa,

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 10 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gourapura J Renukaradhya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submission requirements regarding animal research https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving rabbits and clarify whether rabbits are scarified in your laboratory and if so, ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: 1. The manuscript is technically sound and the data support conclusions partially. However there are sections where it needs improvement and they are listed below.

a. In the Results section, in Isolation of rabbit anti-CiMV mAbs by ISAAC, in the last paragraph, you mention "Thus, we analyzed sequences of these mAbs. The results showed that the eight mAbs are classified into three groups." The rationale for this classification is not clear.

b.Kinetic assay of anti-CiMV mAbs is not clearly explained. There are differences in the affinities of anti-CiMV mAbs, but they all exhibit 1:1 interaction model. What could be the reason behind this observation?

c.The quality of immunoblots should improve.

d. In Detection of CiMV and SDV-like viruses in infected leaves by anti-CiMV mAbs section, in the line 309, you state " In the SDV section of mAb No.9 and 20, early equivalent signals were observed". This statement is wrong. Here, the true signal is zero as it falls in the background noise.

e. In the Discussion section, in the line 358, you mention "Although a highly sensitive diagnostic kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed, the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate has still been hard to detect". This kit should be used as a positive control in your experiments and you need to demonstrate how your novel rabbit anti-CiMV mAbs are superior to this kit.

2. The statistical analyses have not been performed appropriately and rigorously. All the experiments should be performed multiple number of times and expressed as mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. The sample size should be adequate and this should be mentioned clearly in the figure legends. The immunoblots should be quantified and depicted. Appropriate negative and positive controls should be used.

3. All the data is fully available.

4.Overall, the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Reviewer #2: Production of a rabbit monoclonal antibody for highly sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus and related viruses by Miyoshi et al (Manuscript ID #PONE-D-19-23810; PLOS ONE).

The authors have reported characterization of rabbit monoclonal antibody for sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus (CiMV) and related viruses. The manuscript is well written with proper introduction and need for this study. However, there are several shortcomings as listed below.

1. Have you compared the sensitivity of commercially available kit (by Kusano et al) against novel CiMV isolates in your studies? Data has to be included to compare sensitivity of the mAbs identified in this paper.

2. How similar are these viruses with respect to viral genome (CiMV, novel CiMV isolates and SDV-related viruses), discuss in the paper.

3. What is the difference between Fig 1C and 1D? Did you include negative control (DHFR) in Fig 1C? Fig 1 legend is not clear on CiMV coat protein/ peptide, needs to be modified.

4. Fig 1E, although there is corresponding staining as indicated by arrowheads, there are additional bands – is it expected?

5. AlphaScreen data shows differential sensitivity for the various peptides from SDV-like viruses, Fig 3B. Is there a statistical difference between test groups vs. negative control (DHFR)? Also, what does the error bars means – include details in the figure legend.

6. Include corresponding amino acid residue numbers in Fig 3A.

7. It is not clear about the specificity mAbs in Fig 3C, except for mAb No. 9 (Lines 277 to 279).

8. Provide reference for statements in the Introduction section (lines 67 to 70).

9. Perform statistical analysis for the ELISA data in Fig 4C, provide details on number of experiments including replicates involved.

10. How many experiments involved in Fig 4D? Provide quantitated dot-blot analysis based on staining density – this analysis help better understand sensitivity of mAb No. 20.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-23810_review.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Oct 2019

Point-by-Point Responses to the Reviewers’ Critiques (PONE-D-19-23810)

We deeply appreciate the thorough analysis and constructive suggestions provided by the two reviewers to further improve our manuscript. As described in more detail below, we have experimentally addressed all the reviewers’ concerns. With this extensive revision, we hope that the reviewers will concur with us that we have addressed all of the raised concerns in a satisfactory manner and, consequently, substantially strengthened our paper.

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):

The manuscript is technically sound and the data support conclusions partially. However there are sections where it needs improvement and they are listed below.

We wish to express our appreciation to the reviewer for his/her insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Comment 1.

In the Results section, in Isolation of rabbit anti-CiMV mAbs by ISAAC, in the last paragraph, you mention "Thus, we analyzed sequences of these mAbs. The results showed that the eight mAbs are classified into three groups." The rationale for this classification is not clear.

Answer 1.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up these constructive comments. We added the following sentences in the results section (Line 224-227).

“Nucleotide sequences encoding variable region of mAbs No. 3, 4, 10, and 23 and mAbs No. 9, 22, and 33 were identical, respectively, and that of mAb No. 20 was unique. Hence, we selected mAbs No. 4, 9, and 20 as representative of each group for further analysis.”

Comment 2.

Kinetic assay of anti-CiMV mAbs is not clearly explained. There are differences in the affinities of anti-CiMV mAbs, but they all exhibit 1:1 interaction model. What could be the reason behind this observation?

Answer 2.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. In our experimental condition, biotinylated antigen peptides were immobilized on sensor chip at very low concentration (less than 3 RU). As interaction mode between antigen peptides and mAbs was expected to become 1:1 binding, we evaluated the results with 1:1 interaction model.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added following sentence as an explanation of affinity among mAbs in results section (Line 251-255).

“Comparing among these mAbs, although there were small difference in the dissociation rate constant (Kd), the association rate constant (Ka) of mAb No. 9 and 20 was one order higher than that of mAb No. 4. Hence, KD value of mAb No. 9 and 20 was one order lower than that of mAb No. 4. However, KD value of mAb No. 4 was sufficiently low.”

In addition, we rewrote the explanation of experimental condition in legend as followings (Line 260-263).

“Then, the purified mAb was injected at a series of concentrations. The blue lines represent the real time binding data generated from the injected mAbs while black lines indicate the global fit of a 1:1 interaction model to each kinetic data set.”

Comment 3.

The quality of immunoblots should improve.

Answer 3.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this concern. As commented in Line 355-358 in discussion session, the three mAbs obtained in this study look to be structure-recognition antibody. This type of antibodies can not recognize unfolded proteins (Matsuoka et al., 2010). So, we think only weak signals were detected by immunoblot analyses. We moved the immunoblot data (Fig 1E and 3C) to supporting information. In addition, we added following sentence in discussion section (Line 358-359) for explanation of structure-recognition antibody.

“This type of antibodies is reported to be hard to recognize unfolded proteins [22].”

22. Matsuoka K, Komori H, Nose M, Endo Y, Sawasaki T. Screening method for autoantigen proteins using the biotinylated protein library produced by wheat cell-free synthesis. J Proteome Res 2010; 9: 4264-4273.

Comment 4.

In Detection of CiMV and SDV-like viruses in infected leaves by anti-CiMV mAbs section, in the line 309, you state " In the SDV section of mAb No.9 and 20, early equivalent signals were observed". This statement is wrong. Here, the true signal is zero as it falls in the background noise.

Answer 4.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this critical issue and would like to apologize for our wrong explanation. In revised manuscript, we replaced the sentences “The result showed that signals were 1.5 to 2.5 times higher in the CiMV and NIMV sections of mAbs No. 9 and 20 (Fig 4C) whereas equivalent or weaker signals were observed in all sections of the No. 4 mAb. In the SDV section of mAb No. 9 and 20, early equivalent signals were observed.” with “The result showed that signals were significantly higher in the CiMV and NIMV sections of mAbs No. 9 and 20 whereas equivalent or weaker signals were observed in the SDV section of mAb No. 9 and 20 (Fig 4C). In all sections of mAb No. 4, equivalent or weaker signals comparing with virus-free sample were observed (Fig 4C).” in the results section (Line 306-310).

Comment 5.

In the Discussion section, in the line 358, you mention "Although a highly sensitive diagnostic kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed, the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate has still been hard to detect". This kit should be used as a positive control in your experiments and you need to demonstrate how your novel rabbit anti-CiMV mAbs are superior to this kit.

Answer 5.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we performed detection of SDV and CiMV by using the diagnosis kit. The results are shown in S3 Fig. In addition, we added following sentences for explanation of the result of the experiment in results section (Line 312-316) and discussion section (Line 373-377).

“For SDV-related viruses, a highly sensitive diagnosis kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed [8]. By using the kit, as tried to detect SDV, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate. In fact, this kit detected SDV (S3 Fig). However, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate could not be recognized, indicating the importance of a novel mAb to detect the infection of NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate.”

“Although a highly sensitive diagnosis kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed [8], it could not detect NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate (S3 Fig). On the other hand, the results of ELISA and dot blot analysis (Fig 4C and D) clearly show that the mAbs obtained in this study recognize the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate.”

Comment 6.

The statistical analyses have not been performed appropriately and rigorously. All the experiments should be performed multiple number of times and expressed as mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. The sample size should be adequate and this should be mentioned clearly in the figure legends. The immunoblots should be quantified and depicted. Appropriate negative and positive controls should be used.

Answer 6.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up these constructive comments. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we performed multiple dot-blot analysis and the results were quantitated (Fig 4D). In addition, we added data of negative control in Fig 1C and performed statistical analysis in Fig 1D, 3B, 4C, and 4D.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):

The authors have reported characterization of rabbit monoclonal antibody for sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus (CiMV) and related viruses. The manuscript is well written with proper introduction and need for this study. However, there are several shortcomings as listed below.

We wish to express our appreciation to the reviewer for his/her kind comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Comment 1.

Have you compared the sensitivity of commercially available kit (by Kusano et al) against novel CiMV isolates in your studies? Data has to be included to compare sensitivity of the mAbs identified in this paper.

Answer 1.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we performed detection of SDV and CiMV by using the diagnosis kit. The results are shown in S3 Fig. In addition, we added following sentences for explanation of the result of the experiment in results section (Line 312-316) and discussion section (Line 373-377).

“For SDV-related viruses, a highly sensitive diagnosis kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed [8]. By using the kit, as tried to detect SDV, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate. In fact, this kit detected SDV (S3 Fig). However, NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate could not be recognized, indicating the importance of a novel mAb to detect the infection of NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate.”

“Although a highly sensitive diagnosis kit for SDV-related viruses has been developed [8], it could not detect NIMV and the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate (S3 Fig). On the other hand, the results of ELISA and dot blot analysis (Fig 4C and D) clearly show that the mAbs obtained in this study recognize the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate.”

Comment 2.

How similar are these viruses with respect to viral genome (CiMV, novel CiMV isolates and SDV-related viruses), discuss in the paper.

Answer 2.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added following sentences in discussion section (Line 370-373).

“Although amino acid sequence of coat protein of SDV (S-58) is 20% different with that of CiMV (ND-1), the CiMV Az-1(B291) isolate has further 3.3% different amino acid sequence of coat protein with CiMV (ND-1).”

Comment 3.

What is the difference between Fig 1C and 1D? Did you include negative control (DHFR) in Fig 1C? Fig 1 legend is not clear on CiMV coat protein/ peptide, needs to be modified.

Answer 3.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. Fig 1C and 1D showed results of interaction assay of mAbs with peptide and full-length protein, respectively. We added data of negative control using DHFR to Fig 1C. In addition, we performed statistical analysis in Fig 1D. For better understanding, we replaced legend of Fig 1C and 1D as described below (Line 233-242).

“(C) Screening of mAbs against CiMV coat protein by AlphaScreen. Interaction between mAb and biotinylated peptide fragment of CiMV coat protein small subunit was analysed by AlphaScreen. Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means from two independent experiments. (D) Interaction analysis of mAb with CiMV coat protein by AlphaScreen. Interaction between eight mAbs and biotinylated full-length CiMV coat protein small subunit synthesized by cell-free system was analysed by AlphaScreen. Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Asterisk indicates significant differences from negative control (**P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001, Student’s t-test).”

Comment 4.

Fig 1E, although there is corresponding staining as indicated by arrowheads, there are additional bands – is it expected?

Answer 4.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this concern. As we explained in manuscript (Lines 355-358), all mAbs we obtained in this study are looked like structure-recognition antibody. So, it is hard to detect denatured proteins by these mAbs. We think additional bands are non-specific bands derived from wheat germ extract. We removed following sentences and Fig 1E was moved to supporting information. With this decision, procedure of immunoblot analysis was also moved to supporting information.

“The interaction of the three mAbs with CiMV coat protein was also confirmed by immunoblot analysis (Fig 1E).”

Comment 5.

AlphaScreen data shows differential sensitivity for the various peptides from SDV-like viruses, Fig 3B. Is there a statistical difference between test groups vs. negative control (DHFR)? Also, what does the error bars means – include details in the figure legend.

Answer 5.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. According to this suggestion, we performed statistical analysis in Fig 3B. For better understanding, we inserted following sentences in legend of Fig 3B (Line 288-291).

“Biotinylated DHFR was used as negative control. The data are shown as means ± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey test).”

Comment 6.

Include corresponding amino acid residue numbers in Fig 3A.

Answer 6.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments for the improvement of our manuscript. According to this suggestion, we described number of amino acid residues in Fig 3A and added following sentence about amino acid residue numbers in legend of Fig 3A (Line 284-285).

“Corresponding amino acid residue number of first H of each peptide in each coat protein is shown.”

Comment 7.

It is not clear about the specificity mAbs in Fig 3C, except for mAb No. 9 (Lines 277 to 279).

Answer 7.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this concern. As commented in Line 355-358 in discussion session, the three mAbs obtained in this study look to be structure-recognition antibody. This type of antibodies can not recognize unfolded proteins (Matsuoka et al., 2010). So, we think only weak signals were detected by immunoblot analyses. We moved the immunoblot data (Fig 1E and 3C) to supporting information. In addition, we added following sentence in discussion section (Line 358-359) for explanation of structure-recognition antibody.

“This type of antibodies is reported to be hard to recognize unfolded proteins [22].”

22. Matsuoka K, Komori H, Nose M, Endo Y, Sawasaki T. Screening method for autoantigen proteins using the biotinylated protein library produced by wheat cell-free synthesis. J Proteome Res 2010; 9: 4264-4273.

Comment 8.

Provide reference for statements in the Introduction section (lines 67 to 70).

Answer 8.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up these constructive comments. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added three references described below.

1. Iwanami T, Koizumi M, Ieki H. Diversity of properties among satsuma dwarf virus and related viruses. Ann Phytopathol Soc Jpn 1993;59: 642-650.

2. Shimizu S, Miyoshi T, Maruyama A, Ikegami M. Detection of satsuma dwarf virus (SDV) and its related viruses by ELISA using antiserum against SDV. Jpn J Plant Pathol 2002;68: 236-237.

3. Shimizu S, Miyoshi T, Tachibana Y. Susceptibility of citrus varieties to satsuma dwarf vires. Jpn J Plant Pathol 2007;73: 225.

Comment 9.

Perform statistical analysis for the ELISA data in Fig 4C, provide details on number of experiments including replicates involved.

Answer 9.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up these constructive comments. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we performed statistical analysis in Fig 4C, and added sentences in legend of Fig 4C (Line 333-335) as described below.

“The data are shown as means ¬¬± standard deviations (indicated with error bars) from three independent experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey test).”

In addition, we replaced the sentences “The result showed that signals were 1.5 to 2.5 times higher in the CiMV and NIMV sections of mAbs No. 9 and 20 (Fig 4C) whereas equivalent or weaker signals were observed in all sections of the No. 4 mAb. In the SDV section of mAb No. 9 and 20, early equivalent signals were observed.” with “The result showed that signals were significantly higher in the CiMV and NIMV sections of mAbs No. 9 and 20 whereas equivalent or weaker signals were observed in the SDV section of mAb No. 9 and 20 (Fig 4C). In all sections of mAb No. 4, equivalent or weaker signals comparing with virus-free sample were observed.” in the results section (Line 306-310).

Comment 10.

How many experiments involved in Fig 4D? Provide quantitated dot-blot analysis based on staining density – this analysis help better understand sensitivity of mAb No. 20.

Answer 10.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up these constructive comments. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we performed multiple dot-blot analysis. The results were quantitated and statistical analysis were performed. These results were added to Fig 4D.

Submitted filename: Respose to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Feb 2020

Production of a rabbit monoclonal antibody for highly sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus and related viruses

PONE-D-19-23810R1

Dear Dr. Nozawa,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Joseph J Barchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

26 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-23810R1

Production of a rabbit monoclonal antibody for highly sensitive detection of citrus mosaic virus and related viruses

Dear Dr. Nozawa:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Joseph J Barchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE