Next Article in Journal
Molecular Characterizations of the Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Species Causing Urinary Tract Infection in Tanzania: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Bovine Papillomavirus Type 1 Infection in an Equine Congenital Papilloma
Previous Article in Journal
Wild Mesocarnivores as Reservoirs of Endoparasites Causing Important Zoonoses and Emerging Bridging Infections across Europe
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tumor Cell Plasticity in Equine Papillomavirus-Positive Versus-Negative Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/pathogens12020179
Review Report
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Detection of Equine Papillomaviruses and Gamma-Herpesviruses in Equine Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Pathogens 2023, 12(2), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020179
by Lea Miglinci 1,†, Paul Reicher 1,†, Barbara Nell 2, Michelle Koch 1, Christoph Jindra 1,3 and Sabine Brandt 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Federico Armando
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Pathogens 2023, 12(2), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020179
Submission received: 30 November 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 21 January 2023 / Published: 23 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Papillomavirus: Virus Identification, Diagnosis and Co-infections)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper Detection of equine papillomaviruses and gamma-herpesviruses in equine squamous cell carcinoma is a well written and interesting paper on biomolecular detection of viral agents from tumours. I would like to submit you some observations:

The first issue is comparing tumour data against “other samples” data. I understand the reason for which you did not perform biopsy, but please add a paragraph and reference to support the appropriateness of the approach.

Why did you not compare statistically the same samples collected from controls and cases? 

Please add a justification for which you choose a p of 0.1 and not of 0.05.

The headings of the tables must be revised explaining the bold and all the virus names, remind that the tables and figure should be comprehensible also standing by themselves. 

The discussion in general is good, but in some parts it seems more a review, and it is not always connected with the results. Please revise. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the revised version of this work is now ready for publication in the journal

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for taking into account all the comments and revise the text accordingly. I think that now the paper is acceptable for publication.

I prefer not to send it back with minor revisions, but I strongly advice to add in the tables reporting the results a different symbol for the notes and use the asterisks for indicate the statistical differences, adding at the end of the table *= p<0.05. This little change made, the paper would be ready. 

Back to TopTop