Nucleic Acid Vaccine Platform for DENGUE and ZIKA Flaviviruses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Mourosi et al. reviewed the nucleic acid vaccine platform and the progress of the DNA/RNA vaccine candidates for DENV and ZIKA viruses. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and useful review for the reader. However, there are many typos.
Line 12, It is recommended to change “Dengue and Zika” to “Dengue virus and Zika virus”. The same applies below
Line 48, Dengue to Dengue virus
Line 68, NS41 to NS4A
Line 71, PrM to prM
Line 72, NS41 to NS4A
Line 101, (HSP70), to (HSP70).
Line 181, invitro to in vitro.
Line 253, “8and to 8 and
Line 272, Fig. 6c to Fig. 6d?
Line 276, Fig. 6d to be Fig.6c?
Line 163, Fig.4 There is no “(c)” in the legend
Line 232, The reviewer did not recognize “the prM-E vaccine” construct. Is this represent 1 (Env 100%) of Fig.5e? Please make this point clear.
Line 292, What is a “JEV promoter”?. Is this a typo? signal sequence?
Line 309, Please describe which animal was used in this experiment.
Line 190 Blair et al., 2006 Is a year required? The same applies below
Line 238 Dowd et al., 2016
Author Response
Mourosi et al. reviewed the nucleic acid vaccine platform and the progress of the DNA/RNA vaccine candidates for DENV and ZIKA viruses. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and useful review for the reader. However, there are many typos.
We have corrected all the typos in the manuscript. We have also added few lines in introduction about Dengviaxia’s and improved the conclusion.
Line 12, It is recommended to change “Dengue and Zika” to “Dengue virus and Zika virus”. The same applies below
Corrected
Line 48, Dengue to Dengue virus
Corrected
Line 68, NS41 to NS4A
Corrected
Line 71, PrM to prM
Corrected
Line 72, NS41 to NS4A
Corrected
Line 101, (HSP70), to (HSP70).
Corrected
Line 181, invitro to in vitro.
Corrected
Line 253, “8and to 8 and
Corrected
Line 272, Fig. 6c to Fig. 6d?
Corrected
Line 276, Fig. 6d to be Fig.6c?
Corrected
Line 163, Fig.4 There is no “(c)” in the legend
Corrected
Line 232, The reviewer did not recognize “the prM-E vaccine” construct. Is this represent 1 (Env 100%) of Fig.5e? Please make this point clear.
Author added some sentences (line 354-358) for clarification.
Line 292, What is a “JEV promoter”?. Is this a typo? Signal sequence?
It was a typo. It is corrected.
Line 309, Please describe which animal was used in this experiment.
Information has been added.
Line 190 Blair et al., 2006 Is a year required? The same applies below
Corrected
Line 238 Dowd et al., 2016
Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscrit Mourosi et al, present a review on DNA and mRNA vaccines candidate for DENGUE and ZIKA viruses. The manuscript is well written and presents a concise review of the literature on the two viruses (their biological cycle, the principle of DNA and RNA vaccines and then presents the different strategies adopted to develop RNA and DNA candidate vaccines and their passage into clinical trial). Changes need to be made to enable this manuscript to be published :
Line 52 : a secondary infection by another serotype may not necessarily result in severe forms for DENV. «can leads to… » is fine to my point.
In figure 2 : the bracket position is confuse with d
The authors focus mainly on prME for the two viruses as candidates. NS1 is also important for vaccines candidate even some debate around this point (For exemple : Costa et al, 2007, Grubor-bauk
et al, 2019). Either the authors argue for this choice, or they include a more descriptive section on NS1 (soluble form and physiological effects) and then present RNA and DNA vaccine candidates for this target.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
In this manuscript Mourosi et al, present a review on DNA and mRNA vaccines candidate for DENGUE and ZIKA viruses. The manuscript is well written and presents a concise review of the literature on the two viruses (their biological cycle, the principle of DNA and RNA vaccines and then presents the different strategies adopted to develop RNA and DNA candidate vaccines and their passage into clinical trial). Changes need to be made to enable this manuscript to be published :
Line 52 : a secondary infection by another serotype may not necessarily result in severe forms for DENV. «can leads to… » is fine to my point.
Corrected
In figure 2 : the bracket position is confuse with d
The bracket is changed with two merging arrows. Other changes have been made in the figure to make it more clear.
The authors focus mainly on prME for the two viruses as candidates. NS1 is also important for vaccines candidate even some debate around this point (For exemple : Costa et al, 2007, Grubor-bauk et al, 2019). Either the authors argue for this choice, or they include a more descriptive section on NS1 (soluble form and physiological effects) and then present RNA and DNA vaccine candidates for this target.
Few lines have been added about NS1 as vaccine candidate for DENV and ZIKV. As we discussed mainly current clinical trial vaccine constructs, NS1 part was missing earlier, but we agree with the reviewer, NS1 might be potential target despite some controversies.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
