Divergent evolution of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in India: An update from National Diphtheria Surveillance network.

Diphtheria is caused by a toxigenic bacterium Corynebacterium diphtheria which is being an emerging pathogen in India. Since diphtheria morbidity and mortality continues to be high in the country, the present study aimed to study the molecular epidemiology of C. diphtheriae strains from India. A total of 441 diphtheria suspected specimens collected as part of the surveillance programme between 2015 and 2020 were studied. All the isolates were confirmed as C. diphtheriae with standard biochemical tests, ELEK's test, and real-time PCR. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the subset of isolates showed intermediate susceptibility to penicillin and complete susceptible to erythromycin and cefotaxime. Isolates were characterized using multi locus sequence typing method. MLST analysis for the 216 C. diphtheriae isolates revealed major diversity among the sequence types. A total of 34 STs were assigned with majority of the isolates belonged to ST466 (30%). The second most common ST identified was ST405 that was present in 14% of the isolates. The international clone ST50 was also seen. The identified STs were grouped into 8 different clonal complexes (CC). The majority belongs to CC5 followed by CC466, CC574 and CC209, however a single non-toxigenic strain belongs to CC42. This epidemiological analysis revealed the emergence of novel STs and the clones with better dissemination properties. This study has also provided information on the circulating strains of C. diphtheriae among the different regions of India. The molecular data generated through surveillance system can be utilized for further actions in concern.

1. Introduction

Diphtheria is a vaccine preventable disease caused by the human pathogen toxigenic strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae, which causes severe infections like myocarditis and peripheral neuropathy. Humans are the only known reservoir of C. diphtheriae [1]. Whereas the other two toxin producing Corynebacterium species such as Corynebacterium ulcerans and Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis are of zoonotic origin. Non-toxigenic strains of C. diphtheriae can also cause disease with less severity. Diphtheria, if not detected early and treated promptly can lead to significant mortality and morbidity [2]. According to WHO, India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases with more than half of the overall global diphtheria cases between 1980 and 2019 [3].

Recently, effective vaccination with diphtheria toxoid has reduced the mortality and morbidity of diphtheria infection globally. However, fully vaccinated individuals also get affected for unknown reasons including waning immunity, personal health, nutritional status, and infection due to non-toxigenic or variant strains [1]. In 2014, the Government of India launched “Mission Indradhanush” to strengthen the immunization programme and to rapidly achieve full immunization coverage of all children and pregnant women against seven vaccine preventable diseases including diphtheria. In 2015, WHO India also initiated a national surveillance programme on vaccine preventable diseases. In which, Christian Medical College, Vellore, acts as a National reference laboratory (NRL) for diphtheria and pertussis surveillance.

Outbreaks associated with displaced population, socioeconomic conditions of the people and vaccination rates emphasize the continued threat posed by diphtheria. Sporadic outbreaks of diphtheria have continued to be reported from different parts of India among both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals [2, 4, 5]. Information on the clonality of C. diphtheriae strains is not well established in India. Previous MLST studies have shown the dominance of certain clones in a specific geographical area [1]. Preliminary investigations in India have reported novel sequence types in most places including the outbreak reported in Northern Kerala in 2016 [6, 7]. This investigation shows that the genome of C. diphtheriae is constantly evolving and necessitates the monitoring of the spread and evolutional changes in endemic region like India. Owing to the continuous diphtheria outbreak in the country, the present study investigated the molecular epidemiology of geographically diverse collection of C. diphtheriae strains from India.

2. Results

2.1. Culture, AST and real-time PCR

A total of 441 diphtheria suspected specimens [isolates (n = 204); throat swabs (n = 218); other samples (n = 19)] were received and screened for diphtheria by both culture and real-time PCR. These included samples collected at study participating centres. All these samples were confirmed at the NRL for diphtheria at CMC, Vellore. Detailed breakdown of positives by culture and PCR were given in S1 Table. Out of 218 swabs received, 32 were culture positive and 43 were PCR positive for C. diphtheriae. One isolate was identified to be toxin (toxA) negative by PCR. Of the 204 isolates received from participating centres, 180 were confirmed as C. diphtheriae by PCR with 8.3% (n = 15) toxA negative isolates. Among the 19 other samples, 10 were found to be positive, of which 7 were toxin negative. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the subset of 33 isolates (CMC) showed intermediate susceptibility to penicillin. Whereas all tested isolates were susceptible to erythromycin and cefotaxime according to CLSI-M45 guidelines.

2.2. MLST analysis

MLST analysis for the 216 C. diphtheriae isolates representing the Indian population revealed major diversity among the sequence types. A total of 34 STs were assigned to the 216 C. diphtheria isolates. The distribution of STs over the study period was shown in Fig 1. The identified STs were grouped into 8 different clonal complexes (CC). The majority belongs to CC5 followed by CC466, CC574 and CC209, however a single non-toxigenic strain belongs to CC42.

Fig 1

Distribution of sequence types over the study period (2015–2020).

Majority of the isolates belonged to ST466 (30%). The second most common ST identified was ST405 that was present in 14% of the isolates. The international clone ST50 was seen in 11% of the study isolates. Further ST377 and ST469 were identified in 9.2% and 7.4% of the isolates, respectively.

2.2.1. Region specific clones

ST301 was identified only in Lucknow and was not seen in any other state. The non-toxigenic clone was mainly seen in the Kerala isolates. The region-wide distribution of observed C. diphtheriae STs is given in S2 Table. Other STs observed were ST295, ST308 including novel STs such as ST408, ST409, ST422, ST443, ST446, ST468, ST470, ST540, ST541, ST542, ST548, ST566, ST567, ST568, ST569, ST57, ST573, ST574, ST575, ST576, ST587, ST588, ST590, ST591, ST592 and ST599.

Most of the novel STs were identified in isolates from Kerala. All the novel STs identified in this study were SLV/DLV/TLV of the existing STs with a minimum of one SNP to a maximum of 26 SNPs except for two STs (ST466 and ST566), which stand separate (Table 1). The non-toxigenic isolates were observed to have the following sequence types ST542, ST409, ST295, ST443, ST422, ST566, and ST568, whereas the STs identified in both toxigenic and non-toxigenic isolates were ST408, ST466, ST591 and ST575, respectively. The MLST sequences obtained, and its distribution among the study isolates are given in the S2 Table. The phylogenetic tree showed the relatedness of the isolates based on the concatenated MLST gene sequences (Fig 2). Individual isolate details on toxigenicity, ST, region and year of isolation were given in S3 Table. The possible routes of transmission of STs were mapped according to their pattern of first occurrence and their sample collection date (Fig 3).

Table 1

SNP analysis of sequence types identified among the study isolates.

Sequence type	atpA	dnaE	dnaK	fusA	leuA	odhA	rpoB	SNPs	Clonal complex
ST3	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	Known ST	CC209
ST295	2	1	20	19	3	3	14	Known ST	CC509
ST50	2	2	4	1	3	3	2	Known ST	CC5
ST377	2	43	87	4	59	3	6	Known ST	CC540
ST301	2	10	3	1	7	3	2	Known ST	CC574
ST308	4	12	4	1	18	3	13	Known ST	CC5
*ST405	4	12	4	1	18	3	2	SLV of ST308 by 3 SNPs	CC5
*ST408	8	2	3	1	18	3	13	TLV of ST308 by atpA—4 dnaE—5 dnaK—11 SNPs
*ST409	6	7	21	12	9	12	11	SLV of ST163 by 1 SNP	CC42
ST422	2	2	38	58	3	3	22	TLV of ST50 by dnaK—17 fusA—6 rpoB—3 SNPs
ST443	3	1	20	19	37	3	35	TLV of ST295 by atpA—2 leuA—4 rpoB—1 SNPs
ST446	4	2	4	1	3	3	2	SLV of ST50 by 4 SNPs	CC5
*ST466	2	3	3	1	2	3	13	None	CC466
*ST468	3	2	4	19	59	3	13	DLV of ST136 by fusA—7 leuA—4	CC5
*ST469	4	10	3	1	7	3	13	DLV of ST301 by atpA—4 rpoB—3 SNPs
*ST470	3	2	99	1	20	3	13	TLV of ST408 by atpA—2 dnaK—7 leuA—6 SNPs
*ST540	2	43	87	4	2	3	6	SLV of ST377 by 8 SNPs	CC377
*ST541	2	3	3	1	59	3	13	SLV of ST466 by 8 SNPs	CC466
*ST542	3	1	4	19	5	3	9	TLV of ST468 by dnaE—1 leuA—3 rpoB—3 SNPs
ST548	3	3	4	2	3	3	5	SLV of ST209 by 4 SNPs	CC209
ST566	19	9	4	19	30	26	22	None
ST567	23	3	3	1	2	3	13	SLV of ST466 by 1 SNP	CC466
ST568	3	1	49	19	3	3	6	TLV of ST542 by dnaK—10 leuA—1 rpoB—3 SNPs
ST569	3	2	4	19	3	3	13	SLV of ST468 by 4 SNPs	CC5
ST570	3	3	3	2	41	3	3	SLV of ST3 by 2 SNPs	CC209
ST573	2	3	76	1	25	3	13	DLV of ST466 by dnaK—5 leuA—3 SNPs	CC466
ST574	2	10	3	1	3	3	2	SLV of ST301 by 6 SNPs	CC574
ST575	3	1	4	58	5	3	22	DLV of ST542 by fusA -1 rpoB—5 SNPs
ST576	2	10	3	64	7	3	2	SLV of ST301 by 1 SNP	CC574
ST587	2	3	97	1	2	3	35	DLV of ST466 dnaK—8 rpoB—1 SNPs	CC466
ST588	2	3	3	1	2	16	13	SLV of ST466 by odhA—4 SNP	CC466
ST590	2	10	3	1	3	57	2	DLV of ST301 by leuA—6 odhA—1 SNPs	CC574
ST591	2	3	38	1	3	3	22	DLV of ST422 by dnaE—1 fusA—6 SNPs
ST592	2	12	87	4	59	3	2	DLV of ST377 by dnaE—4 rpoB—1 SNPs
ST599	2	12	4	1	18	3	2	SLV of ST405 by atpA—4 SNP	CC5

Fig 2

Maximum likelihood phylogeny of MLST alleles from 216 C. diphtheriae isolates.

The clades are highlighted based on the common ST types identified in the study. STs associated with non-toxigenic strains are highlighted in yellow. The inner ring represents the toxigenicity results of the isolates followed by date of collection. The outer ring represents the region of isolation.

Fig 3

Illustration of the probable routes of transmission of STs identified in this study.

The coloured circles represent the first occurrence of the ST and the dotted arrow with colour indicates the possible transmission routes according to the year of isolation. The red dotted lines highlight the hotspot for novel sequence types. Map outline was created using mapchart.net. Republished from mapchart.net under a CC BY license, with permission from MapChart, original copyright 2021.

3. Discussion

Diphtheria remains endemic in many parts of the world and continues to be a major public health problem in India. There have been numerous reports of diphtheria from several parts of India for the past 10 years [8]. The occurrence of novel sequence types and their circulation in different geographical regions has recently become a serious concern. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first extensive study of the epidemiology of C. diphtheriae from India.

Amongst the total C. diphtheriae positive cases in this study, most of them were from Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow) which indicates the burden of diphtheria in the respective localities. Epidemiological surveillance provides significant understanding of the clonal population of C. diphtheriae particularly in endemic region like India. The presented MLST analysis of the C. diphtheriae isolates revealed great diversity among the isolates over the years 2015–2020. The MLST analysis also includes isolates from the Kerala outbreak reported in 2016 [6].

The predominant sequence type in this study was ST466 (28.6%), a novel sequence type which was first observed in the Kerala outbreak in 2016. Later in 2017, the ST was consistently seen in Kerala and was also found in Lucknow and Chandigarh. While in 2018, it was found in significant numbers in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh which shows the ability of this clone to disseminate rapidly. The second most common sequence type was ST405 (14.5%). This is an SLV of ST308 and was first observed in the year 2015 in Andhra Pradesh. This clone further spread to Kerala in 2016. While in 2017, it was also seen in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. However, in 2018, ST405 was found endemic in Karnataka. Notably, all the identified novel sequence types evolved from established known sequence types by locus variations.

ST377 (9.2%) which was identified among isolates from Tamil Nadu in 2015, began to be seen in Kerala after 2016. Whereas ST469 (7.8%) was first identified in Kerala in 2016 and from 2017 it was also seen in Tamil Nadu.

Interestingly, a region-specific sequence type was identified in this study. ST301 which was restricted to Lucknow was not found in any other region in India. ST301 was first identified in 2017 and continue to persist in Lucknow. A SLV of ST301 was identified and assigned the novel type as ST576. This shows region specific emergence of novel clones due to SNPs in the existing clones.

Results from this study reveal that C. diphtheriae strains are highly diverse. Till date different STs have reported from different countries [9-11]. Such global outbreak associated clones include, ST8, ST12, ST52, and ST66 from United Kingdom [9]. Similarly, ST378 and ST395 seems to be common in South Africa [11]. Whereas, in India ST405, ST466 and ST377 are common as observed in this study. Moreover, the international clone, ST50 was identified in 2016 in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. In 2017 and 2018 it was common in Karnataka which shows the inter-state spread of the ST50 clone. Most of the STs identified in India are diverse but the reason for this and the source of these clones is not well established. Socio-geographical approach is required to understand and identify the ancestral lineage of these clones.

It has been postulated that non-toxigenic strains occur more frequently in individuals who have been previously immunized [12]. In this study, though the immunization status was not known, 14% of strains were negative for toxin by PCR. Further, phylogenetic analysis revealed that majority of the non-toxigenic strains were clustered in two different clades associated with ST408 and ST542. These were mostly seen in isolates from Kerala. Non-toxigenic ST408 and ST542 were found to have evolved from the existing sequence types of toxigenic ST301 and ST377 respectively. This scenario could be due to the loss of genes that affect the expression of tox gene during the evolution.

MLST is a useful tool for evolutionary studies and for tracking the dissemination of clones. However, there is a limitation in discriminating strains within the same ST due to continuing change in their accessory genomes. Previous studies revealed that approximately one-third of the C. diphtheriae genome encodes accessory genes that vary widely between strains. The strains within individual STs differed by the presence or absence of up to 290 genes, which are mostly present on the genomic islands [13]. This study clearly indicates the evolving genome diversity of C. diphtheriae strains in India.

Clonal variation among the C. diphtheriae strains was observed in the study population. The epidemiological analysis revealed the emergence of novel STs and the clones with better dissemination properties. This indicates a rapid evolution of C. diphtheriae in India. In the present study, ST466 was found to be the predominant sequence type with better adaptive and dissemination capabilities. ST301 was identified as a region-specific toxigenic clone, from which the non-toxigenic ST408 has evolved. This study has now revealed the pattern of circulating STs of C. diphtheriae among the different regions of India.

4. Materials and methods

Samples collected as part of the National Diphtheria Surveillance Programme, India were included in this study. Specimens (throat, ear and nasal swabs, and pieces of throat membrane) were collected from diphtheria suspected patients attending CMC, Vellore. Isolates were also received from participating centres, various district hospitals and government health centres. All the specimens were subjected to culture identification and were confirmed by real-time PCR.

The collected samples were representative of the Indian population. The centre from South India includes, Christian Medical College, Vellore; Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore; Madurai Medical College, Madurai; Kauvery Hospital, Trichy; Govt. Villupuram Medical College, Villupuram; Kanchi Kamakoti Hospital and Southern Railway Hospital, Chennai; State Public Health, Trivandrum, Kerala; St. John’s Hospital, RIMS, Raichur and S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Karnataka. The samples representing the North Indian population were collected from the following centres: PGIMER, Chandigarh; KGMC, Lucknow; Bharathi Vidya Peeth, Sangli, Maharashtra; and LTM Medical College, Mumbai.

4.1. Bacterial culture and characterisation

The swabs were processed, and initial identification was done by staining and culture on blood agar (10% sheep blood) and serum tellurite agar. C. diphtheriae colonies were further confirmed on tinsdale agar (cystinase test) (DIFCO, USA) as black colonies with brown halo. The species identification was done with standard biochemical testing based on the utilization of sugars such as glucose, dextrose, sucrose, maltose followed by nitrate and urease tests (Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA).

4.2. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined for the subset of the isolates using E-test against antibiotics such as penicillin, cefotaxime, and erythromycin. The results were interpreted according to CLSI-M45 guidelines [14].

4.3. Real-time PCR detection

DNA was extracted using the AQIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). The target genes include rpoB specific for C. diphtheria and C. ulcerans, toxA. RNaseP was used as an internal control. Primers, probes and cyclic conditions used in this study were as previously described [15]. Briefly, the reaction set-up includes 95°C for 10 mins; followed by 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 secs and 60°C for 30 secs. Ct cut off values for positivity were ≤34 for C. diphtheriae, ≤31 for C. ulcerans, and ≤35 for toxA.

4.4. MLST typing

C. diphtheriae isolates were subjected to multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) according to the C. diphtheriae PubMLST protocol. Briefly, the DNA fragments on each strand were sequenced with the sequencing primers by using an ABI PRISM BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA) and an ABI 3500 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems, USA). The Allele profiles, ST and clonal complexes (CC) were assigned by using the PubMLST database (https://pubmlst.org/organisms/corynebacterium-diphtheriae) [9]. Alleles and ST that had not been previously described were submitted to the database and were assigned new allele numbers and STs. A clonal complex was defined as a cluster of related STs linked as single-, double- or triple- locus variants to another ST in the group. MLST alleles of C. diphtheriae isolates were used to build a phylogeny based on the maximum-likelihood method using MEGA (v7.0.26) [16]. Metadata were added to the phylogenetic tree using iTOL (v4.3) online software [17]. Further, predicted routes of transmission of strains studied here was mapped using mapchart.net.

4.5. goeBURST analysis

goeBURST analysis was performed to identify the related genotypes in the population, and to identify the founding genotype (ST) of each group. goeBURST analysis was performed using the PHYLOViZ 2.0 tool [18].

Laboratory confirmation of C. diphtheriae cases at NRL for diphtheria, CMC, Vellore.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Distribution of sequence types among different states in India.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Metadata including isolate ID, toxigenicity, STs, region and year of isolation for C. diphtheriae isolates depicted in the MLST phylogeny Fig 2.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

20 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-24753Divergent evolution of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in India: An update from National Diphtheria Surveillance NetworkPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Veeraraghavan,

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. Your manuscript has been reviewed and a minor revision  is suggested.  Please follow the comments and make the necessary revision. If you don't agree, you can give a rebuttal.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Two weeks. 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

3.Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 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].”

2. 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/

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Kumar et al., describe an important study on 441 which suggests that novel STs and clones are emerging in India with enhanced ability to disseminate and also provides a very useful snapshot of the strains of C diphtheriae circulating in India. This is an important study.

I have a few comments to the authors

the data statement says all the data is available, but I cannot find links to the MLST profiles or teh data used in the iTOL tree....

How related are the strains described in this manuscript to those in Will et al 2021 (Nat Comms) there is overlap in the authorship and it is important that the strains with whole genomes can be cross referenced – this must be stated.

It would be good to have more international context too….such as relationships to other Asian strains and the reference to global strains in the text (around the text lines 244-253) – is it possible to add some date context to these…and potentially speculate on the emergence of these in India? Where they introduced to india? Or was india the source of these clones globally….

Line 63 – ‘India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally’

…this sentence should be contextualised either with a date ‘India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally between 2015 and 2020’ [if that is correct?]

or made open ended ‘India reports the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally’

line 97/98 the unknown reason for why vaccinated individuals become affected…such as waning immunity or strain variation…

line 318 – please provide PubMLST link and this also probably needs the link to Bolt et al for the primers references…

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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

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

18 Nov 2021

1. the data statement says all the data is available, but I cannot find links to the MLST profiles or teh data used in the iTOL tree....

Data for all individual isolates included in the iTOL tree are now given in supplementary table 3. Line 161-162.

2. How related are the strains described in this manuscript to those in Will et al 2021 (Nat Comms) there is overlap in the authorship and it is important that the strains with whole genomes can be cross referenced – this must be stated.

The current study does not represent whole genome data and it primarily discusses the epidemiological stand of C. diphtheriae in India. However, citation to will et al is included to refer detailed information on few isolates from this study included in study by Will et al.

3. It would be good to have more international context too….such as relationships to other Asian strains and the reference to global strains in the text (around the text lines 244-253) – is it possible to add some date context to these…and potentially speculate on the emergence of these in India? Where they introduced to india? Or was india the source of these clones globally….

More than 70% of the isolates observed in India are found to be novel STs and are not reported elsewhere. MLST data is not sufficient to speculate origin of existing STs. It needs complete genome information from global data set to compare with the Indian isolates, which itself is a separate study. However, to provide a global representation, previous information on existing STs observed in India is included in the discussion as suggested by the reviewer.

Line 63 – ‘India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally’

…this sentence should be contextualised either with a date ‘India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally between 2015 and 2020’ [if that is correct?]

or made open ended ‘India reports the highest number of diphtheria cases 64 globally’

The statement has been modified to include details on the number of cases reported as suggested. “India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases globally as of October 2020”.

line 97/98 the unknown reason for why vaccinated individuals become affected…such as waning immunity or strain variation…

The sentence has been modified as “However, fully vaccinated individuals also get affected for unknown reasons including waning immunity, personal health, nutrition status, and infection due to non-toxigenic or variant strains”. Line 97-99.

line 318 – please provide PubMLST link and this also probably needs the link to Bolt et al for the primers references…

The link for PubMLST is now updated and included reference for Bolt et al. 2010 as suggested (Line 283).

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-24753R1Divergent evolution of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in India: An update from National Diphtheria Surveillance NetworkPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Veeraraghavan,

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. Your manuscript has been returned to the original reviewer and a minor revision is still suggested.

Please submit your revised manuscript by two weeks 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: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.

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 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,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: the authors have addressed most of the comments - however there are still a couple of things that are still not clear

“India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases globally as of October 2020” - this needs a date range and citation or further explanation...it currently reads like the most diphtheria cases globaly ever have occured in india up to october 2020 - it is important to state this as as it can be used to raise awareness and to obtain funding for the whole community.

Also the data files used to create the iTOL tree should be available as it will be difficult to look at in close detail once printed.

The overlap of strains in the Will et al., paper should also be explicitly stated as it will enable those genomes to be reanalysed

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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

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

26 Nov 2021

Response to reviewer comments

Reviewer #1: the authors have addressed most of the comments - however there are still a couple of things that are still not clear

“India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases globally as of October 2020” - this needs a date range and citation or further explanation...it currently reads like the most diphtheria cases globaly ever have occured in india up to october 2020 - it is important to state this as as it can be used to raise awareness and to obtain funding for the whole community.

The statement has been modified as “According to WHO, India reported the highest number of diphtheria cases with more than half of the overall global diphtheria cases between 1980 and 2019”. Citation (Source: WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system 2020 global summary) for the same is included in the introduction section (line 93-95).

Also the data files used to create the iTOL tree should be available as it will be difficult to look at in close detail once printed.

Data labelled in the figure 2 using iTOL is provided as the supplementary table 3.

The overlap of strains in the Will et al., paper should also be explicitly stated as it will enable those genomes to be reanalysed

We thank the reviewer for pointing this. We have included the strain IDs in the supplementary table file S3. These isolate IDs can be used by the readers to refer corresponding genomes mentioned in Will et al., paper.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Dec 2021

Divergent evolution of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in India: An update from National Diphtheria Surveillance Network

PONE-D-21-24753R2

Dear Dr. Veeraraghavan,

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,

Yung-Fu Chang

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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (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

6 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-24753R2

Divergent evolution of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in India: An update from National Diphtheria Surveillance Network

Dear Dr. Veeraraghavan:

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. Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE