Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Hanna Omelchenko 1,
  • Natalia O. Avramenko 1 and
  • Grzegorz Woźniakowski 4,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Maria Staiano Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Zaven Alexandr Karalyan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem described by the authors concerns the increasing number of African swine fever cases found in Ukraine, in my opinion, could be closely related to the lack of special control measures and new legal frameworks currently in place in the euro area countries. The measures to counter the evolution of African swine fever are simple but difficult to achieve due to superficiality and personal interests, awareness among hunters and the population for correct information on disease control. Strengthening passive surveillance, depopulation of wild animals if possible, timely execution of virological control and strengthening of biosecurity measures on farms for the protection of animal health. The spread of this African swine fever described and the absence of political restrictions on it at the moment in Ukraine, forces the scientific community to make up for this lack in order to sensitize the competent authorities to the socio-economic danger that this epidemic entails.

We are well under way, but it is still time, so scientists should make their voices heard. The military offensive in Ukraine has certainly not helped to spread the concern that an epidemic like the PSA deserves.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your positive opinion on our manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and proofread by English-native speaking person to eliminate some language errors. Additional correction have been introduced to meet the suggestions of other two reviewers.

Best regards

 

Grzegorz Wozniakowski

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Editor,

 

The manuscript entitled “Ten years of African swine fever in Ukraine. An endemic form of the disease in the wild boar population as a threat to domestic pig production” by Omelchenko et al. describes the retrospective analysis of the spread of African Swine Fever in Ukraine in 2012-2022, to evaluate the role of wild boars in the ASF epizootic process in Ukraine. The results showed the presence of ASF in Ukraine from 1977 (the first case was detected in pigs in the Odessa region). Subsequently, ASF was evidenced in 2012 (the second case was detected in pigs in the Zaporizhian

region). In 2014 in the Sumy region, ASF was found in the wild boar carcass about 1.5 km from the state border with the Russian Federation. Later, the ASF outbreaks in wild boars were recorded in different regions of Ukraine until 2022. The ASF was detected in afforested areas, backyards, and domestic pig farms. In addition, the most important factor responsible for the transmission

of ASF was human activity. However, the authors declare the high prevalence of ASF outbreaks, including lack of health certificates for domestic pigs, illegal pigs movements, and uncontrolled trade of pigs and pig production. Finally, the ASF outbreaks were characterised by seasonality. 

 

General comments

 

As far as the the introduction is concerned, I think it is too long. In general, the introduction should briefly place the study in a broader context and emphasise the reason for its importance. I advise authors to shorten it by following the manuscript preparation notes in the manuscript preparation link (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/pathogens/instructions#preparation).

 

Bibliographic citations must be revised in the relevant paragraphs. Some of these are not appropriate. In addition, citation No. 9 should be replaced by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses ICTV 2021 (https://ictv.global/report/chapter/asfarviridae/asfarviridae). Furthermore, the authors are advised to include the current epidemiological situation of African swine fever has been occurring since January 2022 in Italy (Iscaro et al., 2022). 

 

Concerning the the statistical study, the authors, should better describe how they carried out the

a statistical survey in the materials and methods section.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your in-depth and detailed review. Accordingly to the concerns raised due to the quality of English, the manuscript has been proofread by English-native speaking person.

 General comments

  1. Reviewer: As far as the the introduction is concerned, I think it is too long. In general, the introductionshould briefly place the study in a broader context and emphasise the reason for its importance. I advise authors to shorten it by following the manuscript preparation notes in the manuscript preparation link (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/pathogens/instructions#preparation).
    Reply GW:  I agree. The introduction section was slightly shortened in the current version of the manuscript. The type of the article has been also revised.
  2. Bibliographic citations must be revised in the relevant paragraphs. Some of these are not appropriate. In addition, citation No. 9 should be replaced by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses ICTV 2021 (https://ictv.global/report/chapter/asfarviridae/asfarviridae). Furthermore, the authors are advised to include the current epidemiological situation of African swine fever has been occurring since January 2022 in Italy (Iscaro et al., 2022). 
    Reply GW: I agree the citation list has been corrected. The suggested references have been included as well.
  3. Concerning the the statistical study, the authors, should better describe how they carried out the a statistical survey in the materials and methods section. Reply GW: Additional comment on statistical examinations has been included in Materials and Methods section.

Many thanks for your kind review!

 

Grzegorz Woźniakowski

Reviewer 3 Report

Article entitled “Ten years of African swine fever in Ukraine. An endemic form 2 of disease in the wild boar population as a threat to domestic 3 pig production.” has some scientific value.  Reviewed article requires corrections.

 

Comments

 

Main

Authors postulate that "It has been observed that ASF in Ukraine was characterized by seasonality". This is an epidemiologically important observation, but the authors absolutely do not comment on the reasons for this phenomenon.

 

Other:

 

1.  Authors provide a number of important facts about the prevalence of the virus among wild boars and the difference in the content of the virus in different countries (lines 84-85), but do not even try to guess the reasons for this phenomenon. The same applies to data on the rate of spread of infection in various countries (lines 81-83).

 

2. "As an endemic disease in Europe, the disease was registered in 1978 on the Italian island of Sardinia" Its known that ASFV was endemic in Spain since end of 50s  however then was eradicated at least in domestic pig populations.

 

3. The authors are confused in administrative terms e.g. the Odessa region is designated as a region and as an “oblast”

 

4. A very important statement (lines 309-310) that outbreaks of the disease in wild boars (2019) and domestic pigs (2017) do not coincide again is not commented on in the article.

 

5. In some parts of the article, data are provided for 2022 (for example, Figs 2, 4, 6 and Tablew 1, 2), although the year has not yet ended. At the same time, in Fig 5, the data ends in 2021. Perhaps it makes sense to wait two months to receive data for 2022 and fully present them in the article?

 

6. 8. In connection with the aggression of Russia, the authors would like to clarify where the data for 2022 from the occupied regions came from? We are talking primarily about Donetsk, Luhansk Regions

 

7. Lines 255, 282 instead Odesa must be Odessa

 

8. Legend in Fig 6 written in Russian.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your detailed review. Please kindly find our revisions and the improved manuscript.

Comments

Main

  1. Authors postulate that "It has been observed that ASF in Ukraine was characterized by seasonality". This is an epidemiologically important observation, but the authors absolutely do not comment on the reasons for this phenomenon. Reply GW: Additional comment has been added. I believe this explains the reasons of seasonality in domestic pig sector. Thank you.

 

Other:

 

  1. Authors provide a number of important facts about the prevalence of the virus among wild boars and the difference in the content of the virus in different countries (lines 84-85), but do not even try to guess the reasons for this phenomenon. The same applies to data on the rate of spread of infection in various countries (lines 81-83). Reply GW: Additional explanations have been added. Thank you.

 

  1. "As an endemic disease in Europe, the disease was registered in 1978 on the Italian island of Sardinia" Its known that ASFV was endemic in Spain since end of 50s however then was eradicated at least in domestic pig populations. Reply GW: Well I agree that ASF has been eradicated in Spain but in fact the real endemic stage was presented in Sardinia (for over 40 years). That's why this sentence has been added. I would like to keep this phrase in its current form. 
  1. The authors are confused in administrative terms e.g. the Odessa region is designated as a region and as an “oblast" Reply GW: Many thanks. The terms "Oblast" have been changed to 'regions'.

 

  1. A very important statement (lines 309-310) that outbreaks of the disease in wild boars (2019) and domestic pigs (2017) do not coincide again is not commented on in the article. Reply GW: I truly apologize, but this is not really clear to me. In fact it seems that the direct link between ASFV in wild boar and domestic pigs sector (backyards) caused the continuous "waves" of ASF outbreaks in pigs. I hope it is clear now.

 

  1. In some parts of the article, data are provided for 2022 (for example, Figs 2, 4, 6 and Tablew 1, 2), although the year has not yet ended. At the same time, in Fig 5, the data ends in 2021. Perhaps it makes sense to wait two months to receive data for 2022 and fully present them in the article? Reply GW: Many thanks for this suggestion but the paper needs to be published ASAP due to some Ukrainian evaluation reasons.

 

  1. 8. In connection with the aggression of Russia, the authors would like to clarify where the data for 2022 from the occupied regions came from? We are talking primarily about Donetsk, Luhansk Regions. Reply GW: I apologize but being a corresponding (Polish) co-author it is extremely difficult to fully explain the current geopolitical situation. The contact between Poland and the Ukraine is still restricted due to some power-related issues. I hope It is fully understandable since the situation is still very unstable.
  2. Lines 255, 282 instead Odesa must be Odessa. Reply GW: Many thanks. This has been corrected.

 

  1. Legend in Fig 6 written in Russian. Reply GW: Many thanks. Corrected.

Many thanks for your review!

With kind regards

 

Grzegorz Wozniakowski

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 Accept in present form