NcGRA7 and NcROP40 Play a Role in the Virulence of Neospora caninum in a Pregnant Mouse Model
, Rafael Amieva 1, Javier Regidor-Cerrillo 2, Marta García-Sánchez 2, Esther Collantes-Fernández 1, Iván Pastor-Fernández 1, Jeroen P. J. Saeij 3, Luis Miguel Ortega-Mora 1,* and Pilar Horcajo 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
NcGRA7and NcROP40 play a role in the virulence of Neospora caninum in a pregnant mouse model- pathogens-1865666.
General comments
I found the article remarkably interesting and easy to read. Minor modifications are needed to improve the Ms.
Introduction
Line 32: Neospora caninum is an obligate intracellular apicomplexa parasite, phylogenetically related to Toxoplasma gondii, and the aetiological agent of bovine neosporosis. Add the comma.
Line 35: Please modify this sentence: Unfortunately, no tools are available.
Line 44: Think to delete: showed.
Line 40: Delete observed.
Line 57: and host response control...Please add a reference/s.
Please, include the studies in other rhoptries to discuss later.
Materials and Methods
Line 87: Please give details of the Figure or supplementary material.
Fig 1 E: Please add scale bar to all images. If possible, indicate with a narrow
Line 245-246: Could be possible to move this to 2.3 please?
Results
I prefer to see figures 1 C, D AND E,later in the Ms. I suggest creating a different Figure.
Fig 1 C: Please add ladder details and bp length reference of the bands.
3.3. Line 442. Why only in males? Please clarify this.
Discussion
Line 442: Please add some references.
Line 511 – 514: these sentences go to M&M.
Line 562-562: How do you explain this? Any hypothesis? It would be interesting to discuss this more.
Line 565-568: Please rewrite this. It is not clear.
Line 569-585: Is there any transcriptomic data of these genes between different stages during the biological cycle?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
You did an excellent and very hard job trying to unveil another little piece of the Neospora c. pathogenesis. A great thumb up for all the group.
Here are some very minor suggestions, which I think it might improve the manuscript:
Line 13: "biological variability" is a generic term which can be interpreted in broad array of meanings. Can you find a more precise and less ambiguous term for it?
Line 19: Instead of “partial loss of virulence” I would say “reduction of virulence”. It is clearer to me.
Line 32: ApicomplexaN
Line 33: “Etiological” should be if you adopted American English. Decide if you want to adopt British or American and check thoroughly the entire manuscript.
Lines 261-262: when you are defining the four groups, I had the impression that you just mention three (because you just wrote the “KO parasites”). I would rephrase it giving the readers, 4 separate groups, without brackets.
Line 323: You mention that fertility and mortality rates are organised in contingency table. Can you be clearer about it?
Line 327: You rightfully describe your statistical methods for analysis, with ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis for different values. I assume that you first verified the distribution type. Can you add which tests you used to verify the distribution?
Lines 368-369: “…prolonged the their median survival times.” Here you should mention compared to who (I know you explain in detail afterwards, but the sentence seems cut).
Lines 447-448: “The ratio of IFN…..” The whole sentence should go into M&M.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
