Detection and Molecular Characterization of Gyrovirus Galga 1 in Chickens in Northern Vietnam Reveals Evidence of Recombination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article ”Detection and Molecular Characterization of Gyrovirus Galga 1 in Chickens in Northern Vietnam Reveals Evidence of Recombination”, authors present a study about the presence of  the Vietnamese GyVg1 strains in commercial chickens. They detect and characterized GyVg1 strains which have been circulating among chickens.

 

The article is very interesting, as the disease is new and the authors present a genetic characterization of GyVg1 circulating among chickens in North Vietnam.

I have only a few comments:

The abstract should be one-part.

The introduction is too short.

Materials and methods.

2.1. The ethics statement is usually at the end of the article.

2.2. You homogenized the tissues, and which part of the sample did you use for extraction? Maybe the supernatant?

2.3. Which kits did you use in PCR, you only mentioned the primer sets? Do you have gel electrophoresis results?

Results section. “nt sequence” is better to be just “sequence”

“NT” is better to be “Nucleotide”, and “aa” - “amino acids”.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated by a red-font color. Below, we have provided our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

* Reviewer 1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors #1

In their article ”Detection and Molecular Characterization of Gyrovirus Galga 1 in Chickens in Northern Vietnam Reveals Evidence of Recombination”, authors present a study about the presence of  the Vietnamese GyVg1 strains in commercial chickens. They detect and characterized GyVg1 strains which have been circulating among chickens.

The article is very interesting, as the disease is new and the authors present a genetic characterization of GyVg1 circulating among chickens in North Vietnam.

 

I have only a few comments:

The abstract should be one-part.

The authors thanks for the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. We followed the journal’s construction to built abstract and simple summary. Therefore, we would like to keep the current version as the instruction.

 

The introduction is too short.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments. I tried to improve the introduction in the revised manuscript.

 

Materials and methods.

2.1. The ethics statement is usually at the end of the article.

We would like to thank for the reviewer’s suggestions. The changes have been made in the revised manuscript.

 

2.2. You homogenized the tissues, and which part of the sample did you use for extraction? Maybe the supernatant?

After centrifuging homogenized tissues, the supernatant was collected and performed RNA extraction. We would like to provide this information in the revised manuscript.

 

2.3. Which kits did you use in PCR, you only mentioned the primer sets? Do you have gel electrophoresis results?

We thank for the reviewer questions. In this study, we used Gotaq^TM Green Master Mix (Promega, USA). We would like to provide this information in line … in the revised manuscript.

We have gel electrophoresis rerults, but we think that the results do not have a lot of meaning, therefore, we would like to do not add in the manuscript.

 

Results section. “nt sequence” is better to be just “sequence”. “NT” is better to be “Nucleotide”, and “aa” - “amino acids”.

We thank for the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. The changes have been done in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following minor comments regarding the manuscript:

 

1. In the introduction section, provide some more information about the importance of this virus and why it is difficult to differentiate it from other related viral diseases like CAV or else.
2. Briefly explain the role of NSP like VP1, VP2, and VP3.
3. Provide some background about the clusters of GyVg1 that are prevalent and important in SE Asia and the rest of the world.
4. Provide the name of the VP's region (VP1 or VP2) that was selected for PCR primer design and amplification.
5. Any virus isolation attempts were made from the positive sample?
6. Provide an agarose gel picture along with a positive control to show the amplification and band size.
7. Provide the clinical importance/pathogenic importance of substitutions of AA at different positions in VP1, VP2, and VP3 in the discussion section.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated by a red-font color. Below, we have provided our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

* Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following minor comments regarding the manuscript:

In the introduction section, provide some more information about the importance of this virus and why it is difficult to differentiate it from other related viral diseases like CAV or else.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript.

 

Briefly explain the role of NSP like VP1, VP2, and VP3.

We thank for the reviewer’s suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript.

 

Provide some background about the clusters of GyVg1 that are prevalent and important in SE Asia and the rest of the world.

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. We provided additional information on prevalent in SE asia countries in the revised manuscript.

 

Provide the name of the VP's region (VP1 or VP2) that was selected for PCR primer design and amplification.

We thank for the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. The changes have been made in the manuscript.

 

Any virus isolation attempts were made from the positive sample?

Positive samples were selected for virus isolation. However, results have not yet done since antibody may be appeared and affected virus isolation through embryonated eggs.

 

Provide an agarose gel picture along with a positive control to show the amplification and band size.

We thank for the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. The changes have been made. Since this is the first research on this virus, a PCR without positive control was used, the postive sample was sequenced to confirm the GyVg1 infection. After, we used the postive sample as a positive control for the next PCR.

 

Provide the clinical importance/pathogenic importance of substitutions of aa at different positions in VP1, VP2, and VP3 in the discussion section.

We appologize for this mis-information. Since information on relation between substitutions of aa in VP1, VP2, VP3 and the clinical importance/pathogenic importance are lack. Further studies would be required in the future to clarity this point.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The author should considerate reference that were recent than 2002-2004.

2. The author should add a situation review of the study area (Why samples were collected from Northern Vietnam?).

3. line 110 edit "GenBank accessions numbers" to "GenBank accession numbers".

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated by a red-font color. Below, we have provided our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

* Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The author should considerate reference that were recent than 2002-2004.

We would like thank for the reviewer’s suggestions. In the manuscript, we used many of references during 2002 to 2024. Some information is still valuable for citation.

 

2. The author should add a situation review of the study area (Why samples were collected from Northern Vietnam?).

We thank for the reviewer’s suggestion. The change has been made.

 

3. Line 110 edit "GenBank accessions numbers" to "GenBank accession numbers".

We thank the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. The change has been made.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript [animals-3331212], entitled “Detection and Molecular Characterization of Gyrovirus 2 Galga 1 in Chickens in Northern Vietnam Reveals Evidence of Recombination” by Prof. Jatuporn Rattanasrisomporn et al., reports findings of the detection and characterization of the Vietnamese GyVg1 strains in commercial chickens.

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

Some concerns are listed below for consideration in revision.

 

      Major concerns:

1.      Section 1, some sentences were unclear. Such as, Line 41, what does GyVg1 is a circular, single-stranded DNA” mean? Change “GyVg1” to “GyVg1 genome” .

2.      Lines 42, the official name for CAV have been changed, please updated it according to the ICTV. Similar problems existed in Lines 46 and 47.

3.      Lines 56-60, information about epidemical data of the previous reports should listed more detailedly.

4.      Section 2.2 What does “126 in 76 chicken flocks” mean.

5.      Section 3 Lines 121-122, these description should be moved to the Section 2.1.

 

Some specific minor concerns:

6.      Abstract: the scientific meanings of this research should be added.

7.      Section 2.3 Change “total DNA” to “viral DNA” would be more proper. “Supplemental Table 1” should be “Table 1”.

8.      Lines 97-98, the commercial sequencing Institutions should be described more detailedly.

9.      Lines 106, please added the version number of RDP.

10.  Lines 112, what does “this study was done into GenBank” mean.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated by a red-font color. Below, we have provided our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

 

 

* Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript [animals-3331212], entitled “Detection and Molecular Characterization of Gyrovirus 2 Galga 1 in Chickens in Northern Vietnam Reveals Evidence of Recombination” by Prof. Jatuporn Rattanasrisomporn et al., reports findings of the detection and characterization of the Vietnamese GyVg1 strains in commercial chickens.

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. We would like to send to the company for English proofreading.

 

Some concerns are listed below for consideration in revision.

Major concerns:

1. Section 1, some sentences were unclear. Such as, Line 41, what does GyVg1 is a circular, single-stranded DNA” mean? Change “GyVg1” to “GyVg1 genome” .

We thank for the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. The change has been made.

 

2. Lines 42, the official name for CAV have been changed, please updated it according to the ICTV. Similar problems existed in Lines 46 and 47.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes have been made in the revised manuscript.

 

3. Lines 56-60, information about epidemical data of the previous reports should listed more detailedly.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes have been made.

 

4. Section 2.2 What does “126 in 76 chicken flocks” mean.

We apologize for this mistake. We collected a total of 126 samples from chicken flocks. “76 is line number”. We have modified the sentence in the revised manuscript.

 

5. Section 3 Lines 121-122, these description should be moved to the Section 2.1.

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We deleted the description in the revised manuscript.

 

Some specific minor concerns:

6. Abstract: the scientific meanings of this research should be added.

We thank for the reviewer’s suggestion. The changes have been made in the manuscript.

 

7. Section 2.3 Change “total DNA” to “viral DNA” would be more proper. “Supplemental Table 1” should be “Table 1”.

We thank for the reviewer’s corrections. The changes have been made.

8. Lines 97-98, the commercial sequencing Institutions should be described more detailedly.

We thank for the reviewer’s suggestion. The change has been made in the manuscript.

 

9. Lines 106, please added the version number of RDP.

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. The change has been made in the revised manuscript.

 

10. Lines 112, what does “this study was done into GenBank” mean.

We thank for the reviewer’s comment. In this study, we have deposited sequences into GenBank.

 

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

We thank for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. We would like to send the revised manuscript to company for English proofreading to increase the quality of English language.

 

Additional change:

Some minor changes made were also highlighted in red color.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other concerns.