Next Article in Journal
Biological, Molecular, and Physiological Characterization of Four Soybean Mosaic Virus Isolates Present in Argentine Soybean Crops
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of a STAT-1 Knockout Mouse Model for Machupo Virus Infection and Pathogenesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in COVID-19-Related Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Soluble Neuropilin-1 as a Marker for Distinguishing Bacterial and Viral Sepsis in Critically Ill Patients—A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

Viruses 2025, 17(7), 997; https://doi.org/10.3390/v17070997
by Fabian Perschinka 1, Georg Franz Lehner 1, Timo Mayerhöfer 1, Frank Hartig 1, Birgit Zassler 1, Johannes Bösch 2, Dietmar Fries 2, Romuald Bellmann 1 and Michael Joannidis 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Viruses 2025, 17(7), 997; https://doi.org/10.3390/v17070997
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 11 July 2025 / Accepted: 14 July 2025 / Published: 16 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Viral Sepsis: Pathogenesis, Diagnostics and Therapeutics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammar mistakes should be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated whether soluble neuropilin-1 (sNRP-1) is suitable for differentiating between bacterial and viral causes of septic patients. After a brief introduction to the very relevant topic, the material and methods are presented; the patients were part of the SEPSIS-3 study. Please indicate the ethics vote. PCT, IL-6, CRP and sNRP-1 were determined in arterial plasma after storage at -80°C. A total of 51 patients could be included. IL-6 and CRP were only higher in the first 4 days of a bacterial infection than in viral infections, while PCT and sNRP-1 differed throughout the entire week of observation. From day 4 onwards, this was no longer significant for sNRP-1. The conclusion that this is a promising marker is probably a little too optimistic, but this may change with further findings on sNRP-1 regulation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop