Next Article in Journal
Epidemiological Study of Multiple Zoonotic Mosquito-Borne Alphaviruses in Horses in Queensland, Australia (2018–2020)
Next Article in Special Issue
Oral Rabies Vaccine Strain SPBN GASGAS: Genetic Stability after Serial In Vitro and In Vivo Passaging
Previous Article in Journal
The Second Human Pegivirus, a Non-Pathogenic RNA Virus with Low Prevalence and Minimal Genetic Diversity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Alternative Methods to Current In Vivo Procedures to Address the 3Rs Tenet in Rabies Proficiency Testing
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Detection of Apparent Early Rabies Infection by LN34 Pan-Lyssavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Assay in Pennsylvania

Viruses 2022, 14(9), 1845; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091845
by Lisa Dettinger 1,†, Crystal M. Gigante 2,†, Maria Sellard 1, Melanie Seiders 1, Puja Patel 1, Lillian A. Orciari 2, Pamela Yager 2, James Lute 1, Annette Regec 1, Yu Li 2,* and Dongxiang Xia 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Viruses 2022, 14(9), 1845; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091845
Submission received: 16 July 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 23 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Rabies Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents interesting observations based on the results of the diagnostic laboratory for three years. The results will be of interest for upgrading the protocols diagnosis of rabies virus. The data is presented completely and mostly correctly.

 The article has a several of comments.

1. Figure 2 is questionable. PCR curves without normalization cannot serve as a basis for conclusions. Therefore Figure 2A can be omitted.

 Figure 2B is not very readable and it is better to present it not as a curve, but as a histogram.

2. 207-211 lines: qPCR was mentioned for raccoon 2019 homogenate but result is missing.

3. I would like to see a more clearly expressed conclution with the main ideas and message to other researchers.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1

The article presents interesting observations based on the results of the diagnostic laboratory for three years. The results will be of interest for upgrading the protocols diagnosis of rabies virus. The data is presented completely and mostly correctly.

 The article has a several of comments.

  1. Figure 2 is questionable. PCR curves without normalization cannot serve as a basis for conclusions. Therefore Figure 2A can be omitted.

 Figure 2B is not very readable and it is better to present it not as a curve, but as a histogram.

Thank you. Figure 2A has been removed and Figure 2B was converted to a bar graph, as suggested.

  1. 207-211 lines: qPCR was mentioned for raccoon 2019 homogenate but result is missing.

            We have removed that statement from the text.

  1. I would like to see a more clearly expressed conclusion with the main ideas and message to other researchers.

            The following statements were added to address the reviewer’s request: “However, due to the increased sensitivity, objectivity, and technical convenience of the LN34 RT-qPCR, it has potential to replace the DFA or serve as an alternative test for animal rabies diagnostics. Therefore, the PCR deserves further evaluation as the primary rabies test in the United States.”

Reviewer 2 Report

If it is possible you should make biological test in mice for checking your results, just in the two racoon cases.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2

If it is possible you should make biological test in mice for checking your results, just in the two racoon cases.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion; however, this experiment is outside the scope of the current study.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

My resolution is to accept this MS in the present way.

Back to TopTop