Natural History of Influenza B Virus—Current Knowledge on Treatment, Resistance and Therapeutic Options
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGhayyas Ud Din et al. review the structure and life cycle of Influenza B virus and provide a general overview of anti-IBV drugs for treatment and drug resistance. They further discuss the available treatment options for Influenza B virus infection.
This is a comprehensive review on Influenza B virus that covers various aspects such as epidemiological history, structure and genome organization, life cycle and treatment options for flu B infections. However, the following points need to be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.
1. In line 38, in the introduction section, some discussion about vaccines is warranted. Current vaccine formulations are quadrivalent vaccines that contain components from 2 flu B strains. However, the flu vaccine effectiveness has varied between 10% and 60% during the last few decades which is likely caused by a mismatch between the circulating strains and the components from the strains usen in the vaccine available during the flu season.
2. For section 4 – Life Cycle of Influenza Virus, it is suggested that the authors elaborate more on this section. Please include more details about the roles and functions of different components of the flu virus in the life cycle.
3. The flowchart under section 5 – Treatment: Anti-IBV Drugs and resistance should be included as a separate figure and it should be referenced in the text.
4. For figure 4, the authors are suggested to use a better resolution image and better contrasting colors compared to the background color.
5. For the entire section 5, it is crucial to briefly mention any adverse effects/contraindications that are known about the drugs/antivirals.
6. There is an inconsistency in the numbering of tables in the manuscript. There is no Table 1 mentioned in the text but there is Table 2 and Supplementary Table 1. Please resolve the issue.
7. It will be helpful to add the generic name and the respective routes of administration for all the drugs in Table 2.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In line 38, in the introduction section, some discussion about vaccines is warranted. Current vaccine formulations are quadrivalent vaccines that contain components from 2 flu B strains. However, the flu vaccine effectiveness has varied between 10% and 60% during the last few decades which is likely caused by a mismatch between the circulating strains and the components from the strains usen in the vaccine available during the flu season.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We revised the manuscript as you suggested. Please check the lines 38-53.
Point 2: For section 4 – Life Cycle of Influenza Virus, it is suggested that the authors elaborate more on this section. Please include more details about the roles and functions of different components of the flu virus in the life cycle.
Response 2: Thanks for your helpful comments. Details about the role and function of different components of the virus in the life cycle are included. Please check section 4 at lines 190–250.
Point 3: The flowchart under section 5 – Treatment: Anti-IBV Drugs and resistance should be included as a separate figure and it should be referenced in the text.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. The flowchart under section 5 – Treatment: Anti-IBV Drugs and resistance is included as a separate figure. Please check lines 254.
Point 4: For Figure 4, the authors are suggested to use a better resolution image and better contrasting colors compared to the background color.
Response 4: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved Figure 4 to Figure 5 as per your suggestion. Please check lines 264.
Point 5: For the entire section 5, it is crucial to briefly mention any adverse effects/contraindications that are known about the drugs/antivirals.
Response 5: Thanks for your helpful comments. We have revised and added adverse effects/contraindications in the entire section 5 from line 251.
Point 6: There is an inconsistency in the numbering of tables in the manuscript. There is no Table 1 mentioned in the text but there is Table 2 and Supplementary Table 1. Please resolve the issue.
Response 6: Many thanks for your comments. We have revised the table numbering. Please check at line 366 for Table 1 and line 491 for Supplementary File Table 1.
Point 7: It will be helpful to add the generic name and the respective routes of administration for all the drugs in Table 2.
Response 7: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and added the generic name and the respective routes of administration for all the drugs. Please check line 366.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for the authors of Current Issues in Molecular Biology manuscript cimb-2705513:
The author of the Current Issues in Molecular Biology manuscript “Natural History of Influenza B Virus- Current Knowledge on Treatment, Resistance, And Therapeutic Options”, review the history of influenza B virus in the context of the current landscape of treatment options. Influenza B Virus (IBV) is an important member of the influenza family because it causes annual epidemics in the human population. This virus was associated with substantial outbreaks in 1987-88 (Yamagata) and 2001-02 (Victoria). The review focuses on changes in IBV as they relate to challenges associated with preventing and treating IBV.
Below are some comments that the authors should consider while revising their work.
General Comments:
- In the abstract, the authors refer to Influenza B virus pandemic (line 14), which is a bit misleading because influenza is largely associated with epidemic influenza.
- In the final paragraph of the Introduction (lines 38-40), the citation (reference 5) is not needed as this statement does not need to be supported by outside sources.
- The information within the paragraphs, and their overall organization and structure, should be revised to more clearly present the information. As an example, in the Introduction, the authors state that influenza A is more common on line 29 and then state it again (this time with a reference supporting the statement) on line 32.
- Figure 1 could be improved in its presentation of the information. With the exception of the discovery of IAV in 1933, all other symbols are ovals. This makes it difficult to differentiate a pandemic from a major discovery in influenza history. Also, the 2003-05 re-emergence of H5N1 should be noted in this timeline.
- Reference 8 should cite the original paper describing the reconstruction of H1N1. The article cited here is a review.
- Reference 11 should cite an original paper for the 2009 pandemic virus. In fact, it would be helpful if all of the citation in the paragraph on lines 49-61 were from the primary literature and not reviews.
- Reference 66 on line 69 does not appear to match with the statement being made.
- Lines 70-72 do not flow with the rest of the paragraph.
- Some references are not entered in numerical order.
- It might help to include a figure that shows protein function within the viral life cycle. The current figures show gene segments and life cycle, and these could probably be merged into a single figure that shows how the individual protein products interact with host cells within the infection cycle.
- The chemical structure figure (Figure 4) might be better presented without color and possibly in a figure that shows known interactions with viral proteins.
- Table 02 is presented before Table 01. It seems that Table 01 is supplemental, so maybe change the name to Table S1 and change Table 02 to Table 1.
- Reference 57 appears to be about enterovirus and not IBV.
No major problems with English. Should improve overall sentence and paragraph structure.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions and corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors refer to Influenza B virus pandemic (line 14), which is a bit misleading because influenza is largely associated with epidemic influenza.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript as you suggested. Please see line 16 in the abstract.
Point 2: In the final paragraph of the Introduction (lines 38-40), the citation (reference 5) is not needed as this statement does not need to be supported by outside sources.
Response 2: Thanks for your helpful comments. The citation (reference 5) is removed please check the line 55.
Point 3: The information within the paragraphs, and their overall organization and structure, should be revised to more clearly present the information. As an example, in the Introduction, the authors state that influenza A is more common on line 29 and then state it again (this time with a reference supporting the statement) on line 32.
Response 3: Thanks for your helpful comments. The information within the paragraphs and introduction is revised. Please check lines 29-34.
Point 4: Figure 1 could be improved in its presentation of the information. With the exception of the discovery of IAV in 1933, all other symbols are ovals. This makes it difficult to differentiate a pandemic from a major discovery in influenza history. Also, the 2003-05 re-emergence of H5N1 should be noted in this timeline.
Response 4: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved figure 1 as per your suggestion. Please check line 61.
Point 5: Reference 8 should cite the original paper describing the reconstruction of H1N1. The article cited here is a review.
Response 5: Thanks for your helpful comments. We have revised Reference 8 and now the new reference is cited from the original paper. Please check reference 12 at line 518.
Point 6: Reference 11 should cite an original paper for the 2009 pandemic virus. In fact, it would be helpful if all of the citation in the paragraph on lines 49-61 were from the primary literature and not reviews.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. Reference 11 is cited from the original paper. Please check reference 15 at line 525.
Point 7: Reference 66 on line 69 does not appear to match with the statement being made.
Response 7: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved the references according to your suggestions. Please check line 83.
Point 8: Lines 70-72 do not flow with the rest of the paragraph
Response 8: Many thanks for your helpful comments. We have revised and removed the line according to your suggestions please check the line 83.
Point 9: Some references are not entered in numerical order.
Response 9: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have revised the reference order according to your suggestion.
Point 10: It might help to include a figure that shows protein function within the viral life cycle. The current figures show gene segments and life cycle, and these could probably be merged into a single figure that shows how the individual protein products interact with host cells within the infection cycle.
Response 10: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved the figure within the viral life cycle as per your suggestion. Please check the lines 249.
Point 11: The chemical structure figure (Figure 4) might be better presented without color and possibly in a figure that shows known interactions with viral proteins.
Response 11: Thanks a lot for your comment. We have revised the chemical structure of Figure 4 to Figure 5 and improved the presentation without color, However, we regret to inform we are unable to add viral protein interaction at this time thanks for understanding please check line 264.
Point 12: Table 02 is presented before Table 01. It seems that Table 01 is supplemental, so maybe change the name to Table S1 and change Table 02 to Table 1.
Response 12: Many thanks for your comments. We have revised the table numbering please check at line 366 for Table 1 and line 491 for Supplementary File Table 1.
Point 13: Reference 57 appears to be about enterovirus and not IBV
Response 13: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the reference 57 please check line 662.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing my previous comments.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors refer to Influenza B virus pandemic (line 14), which is a bit misleading because influenza is largely associated with epidemic influenza.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript as you suggested. Please see line 16 in the abstract.
Point 2: In the final paragraph of the Introduction (lines 38-40), the citation (reference 5) is not needed as this statement does not need to be supported by outside sources.
Response 2: Thanks for your helpful comments. The citation (reference 5) is removed please check the line 55.
Point 3: The information within the paragraphs, and their overall organization and structure, should be revised to more clearly present the information. As an example, in the Introduction, the authors state that influenza A is more common on line 29 and then state it again (this time with a reference supporting the statement) on line 32.
Response 3: Thanks for your helpful comments. The information within the paragraphs and introduction is revised. Please check lines 29-34.
Point 4: Figure 1 could be improved in its presentation of the information. With the exception of the discovery of IAV in 1933, all other symbols are ovals. This makes it difficult to differentiate a pandemic from a major discovery in influenza history. Also, the 2003-05 re-emergence of H5N1 should be noted in this timeline.
Response 4: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved figure 1 as per your suggestion. Please check line 61.
Point 5: Reference 8 should cite the original paper describing the reconstruction of H1N1. The article cited here is a review.
Response 5: Thanks for your helpful comments. We have revised Reference 8 and now the new reference is cited from the original paper. Please check reference 11 at line 512.
Point 6: Reference 11 should cite an original paper for the 2009 pandemic virus. In fact, it would be helpful if all of the citation in the paragraph on lines 49-61 were from the primary literature and not reviews.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. Reference 10 is cited from the original paper. Please check reference 14 at line 518.
Point 7: Reference 66 on line 69 does not appear to match with the statement being made.
Response 7: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved the references according to your suggestions. Please check line 83.
Point 8: Lines 70-72 do not flow with the rest of the paragraph
Response 8: Many thanks for your helpful comments. We have revised and removed the line according to your suggestions please check the line 83.
Point 9: Some references are not entered in numerical order.
Response 9: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have revised the reference order according to your suggestion.
Point 10: It might help to include a figure that shows protein function within the viral life cycle. The current figures show gene segments and life cycle, and these could probably be merged into a single figure that shows how the individual protein products interact with host cells within the infection cycle.
Response 10: Many thanks for your detailed comments. We have revised and improved the figure within the viral life cycle as per your suggestion. Please check the lines 248.
Point 11: The chemical structure figure (Figure 4) might be better presented without color and possibly in a figure that shows known interactions with viral proteins.
Response 11: Thanks a lot for your comment. We have revised the chemical structure of Figure 4 to Figure 5 and improved the presentation without color, However, we regret to inform we are unable to add viral protein interaction at this time thanks for understanding please check line 263.
Point 12: Table 02 is presented before Table 01. It seems that Table 01 is supplemental, so maybe change the name to Table S1 and change Table 02 to Table 1.
Response 12: Many thanks for your comments. We have revised the table numbering please check at line 364 for Table 1 and line 490 for Figure and Table S1.
Point 13: Reference 57 appears to be about enterovirus and not IBV
Response 13: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the reference 56 please check line 614.
