Unlocking the Black Box: The Molecular Dialogue Between ASFV and Its Tick Host

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following are the main problems in revising the paper（Unlocking the black box: The Molecular Dialogue Between ASFV and Its Tick Host）, which need to be further improved:

1. The current introduction covers too much background information (such as virus structure, historical spread, etc.), but it does not clearly lead to the core theme of "molecular dialogue between viruses and ticks". It is suggested that the content of history and epidemiology should be simplified, and more attention should be paid to the research gap of virus-tick interaction mechanism.
2. Some paragraphs have a blunt transition: for example, the transition from "tick midgut" to "molecular journey of virus in ticks" is abrupt, so it is suggested to add transition sentences to enhance the logical coherence between chapters.
3. Insufficient illustration: Figure 2 (the "molecular journey" of 2(ASFV in ticks) lacks detailed illustration, and the meanings of some arrows and symbols are not clear, so it is suggested to supplement the annotations or add text descriptions.
4. On page 4, it is mentioned that "the difference of midgut microbiome of ticks may affect their vector ability", but the relevant comparative research data is not cited, so it is suggested to supplement specific literature or explain that this is a speculative point of view.
5. In the section "Virus enters tick cells", the comparative analysis of "intestinal leakage" hypothesis and "receptor-mediated" pathway is shallow, and the possibility and evidence support of the two mechanisms are not fully discussed.
6. The conclusion that "MGF360 gene is an important factor to determine the host range of ASFV" lacks direct functional verification data in ticks, so it is suggested to supplement relevant experimental research or indicate that this is an inference based on pig model.
7. It is mentioned that Ixodes don't have transmission ability, but the difference of immune mechanism (such as antimicrobial peptides, RNAi, etc.) between Ixodes and Ixodes is not discussed in depth. It is suggested to add a comparative analysis.
8. If some items in the reference on page 14 are missing page numbers or issue numbers, it is suggested to check and supplement them completely.
9. Some reviews or data cited in this paper are old (for example, before 2010), so it is suggested to supplement the latest research progress of ASFV- tick interaction mechanism from 2023 to 2025.
10. It is suggested to add a picture "ASFV immune escape mechanism in ticks and pigs"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a timely, well-structured, and scientifically valuable review of the complex molecular interactions between African swine fever virus (ASFV) and its Ornithodoros tick vectors. The topic is highly relevant given the ongoing global spread of ASF and the critical yet understudied role of the tick reservoir in disease persistence. The narrative is logically organized, moving from tick biology to viral entry, replication, immune evasion, and transmission — culminating in a useful comparative table (Table 1) and forward-looking conclusions.

However, as a systematic or narrative review, the paper does not describe how literature was selected. With 153 references, readers need to know:

• Which databases were searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, etc.)?
• What search terms were used?
• Was there a time window or language restriction?
• Were duplicates removed?
• Was any framework (e.g., PRISMA) followed?

While a full PRISMA flow diagram may not be required for a narrative review, a brief paragraph in the Methods (or Introduction) clarifying the approach to literature selection would enhance reproducibility and credibility.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and scientifically sound; however, there are a few grammatical and stylistic issues that would benefit from correction by a native academic editor. For example:

• In the Conclusions (line 539): “there are still limited understand” should read “there is still limited understanding of the…”
• In line 451: “ASFV genes may be involved directly or indirectly in the survival of infected tick cells blocking an interferon-like signaling” would be clearer as: “ASFV genes may be involved—directly or indirectly—in the survival of infected tick cells by blocking an interferon-like signaling pathway.”

While these are minor issues, several other sentences throughout the manuscript also sound slightly awkward or unnatural to a native ear. Therefore, I recommend a thorough proofreading by a professional English-language editing service to ensure clarity, fluency, and academic tone.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf