Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review on autophagy and potential for manipulation of autophagy to treat PLWH and potentially contribute to successful HIV cure.  It's well written, readable, includes appropriate references and context, and is organized in a logical manner.  I think it is suitable for publication as is.  One potential improvement would be a slightly longer and more detailed legend for figure 2 but this is a minor and unimportant point. 

Some minor typos and misspellings were detected. A few sentences have slightly strange grammar but overall it's fine and readable. 

Author Response

First, we would like to thank the referee 1 for acknowledging that the review is well-written with a timely topic.

We fully agree that our previous text version had several typos and misspellings. In this context, our up-dated version includes the corrections of these mistakes (now in track changes). We also agree that the figure 2 needed more details and its legend is now slightly longer with additional information.

Overall, we included all corrections that were asked by the referee 1, since they improves the quality of the reading.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The manuscript entitled “Harnessing autophagy to overcome antigen-specific T cell dysfunction: Implication for people living with HIV-1” by Ghahari et al. is well written and well organized. I just have a few minor comments.

·         In line 25 in the abstract, I think the word “roses” was meant to be “poses”.

·         In line 64, remove the word “then” and start the sentence with “activated”.

·         In line 75 reference 24 does not seem to fit the text, since it refers to LAMP-A2 and not PD-1.

·         Please make sure that all references are correct and match the text where they are placed.

·         In line 130, remove the s from “inhibits”

·         In line 167, remove the s from “peptides”.

·         In line 234, replace the word “fishes” with “fish”.

Check the complete manuscript concerning the use of plural and singular wording.

Author Response

We would like to thank the referee 2 for acknowledging that the review is well-written and -organized.

First, we have corrected all listed mistakes in our previous version of the review. We fully agree that our previous text version had several typos and misspellings. In this context, our up-dated version includes the corrections of these mistakes that we were able to detect (now in track changes). 

Overall, we included all corrections (listed or not) that were asked by the referee 2, since they improves the quality of the reading.