Novel Reassortant H5N2 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses from Backyard Poultry in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important work filling a critical information gap.  I think there are some additional points that could make this paper even better.

The terminology for gamefowl should be consistent throughout the manuscript.  I prefer the term gamefowl. I would recommend changing all other terms (fighting cocks, combat fowl) to the term gamefowl.

There are several key differences between the gamefowl and backyard cases that should be clarified, if the data are available:

1) what were the species in the flocks (include the number of each)? I think this will help to tell the reader more about production types.

2) did spread occur from the backyard? There is mention of potential spread from one gamefowl but what about the others?

3) what was the presumed source of infection for all?  There is insinuation of connections with wild birds but what about other poultry?  What is the purpose of the backyard flock?  I assume they are sold or their eggs are sold.  How?

4) what movements had occurred in the 14 days prior to infection? 

5) is daily mortality available?

 

Line 257:  the use of the phrase “on the other hand” is not right.  I think the authors mean “additionally”.

Line 268:  “follow” should be “follows”

 

The lineages of all the segments should be specified not just HA and NA. It is not enough to say “these genomic constellations are consistent with viruses identified in the Americas in 2022”. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Solís-Hernández reported the emergence of novel clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N2) reassortant viruses in backyard poultry in central Mexico, during 2024-2025 which highlighting ongoing local reassortment and viral evolution. This work is important for updating the current situation of AI A(H5NX) in Mexico and helps veterinary services to refocus epidemiological surveillance and strengthen outbreak prevention and updating control strategy. I have some of comments that authors need to address to improve the quality of their manuscript.   

1. How many reassortment event have been recorded? Please clearly state how many independent reassortment events were identified and provide a concise justification based on genomic constellation and phylogenetic evidence.
2. figure 1 to 3 need to be remodified. they should be merged in one fig and other information move to supplementary
3. you need to construct a concatenated phylogenetic tree for all characterized viruses to show genotypes and add schematic figure to show origin of each segment/virus.  
4. the quality of HA and NA trees is very low. 
5. IVPI testing appears to have been performed for all five viruses, all yielding values of 2.9–3.0. Please explicitly confirm this in the Results and clarify whether any variability was observed.
6. table 1, please include (Poultry species, dense of rising, vaccination, potential source of infection, vaccination, sign of infection, genotype of H5N2 "BASED ON NEW ANALYSIS")
7. what is the correlation between these viruses and human A(H5N2) ?  A comparative table highlighting key amino-acid differences, particularly in mammalian-adaptation markers, would strengthen the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ efforts to revise the manuscript and respond to the previous comments. However, after carefully evaluating the revised version, I find that several of my major concerns remain insufficiently addressed. For example

• construct a concatenated phylogenetic tree for all characterized viruses to show genotypes and add schematic figure to show origin of each segment/virus. 
•  The quality of trees is very poor. 
• figure 4 confused me, need to be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf