Association of Milk Somatic Cell Count with Bacteriological Cure of Intramammary Infection—A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors, see detailed comments and suggestions included in pdf version of the manuscript.
A review of such information could be useful, however there are some topics the authors have not considered, i.e. what is the practical implication of the results of such a study.
Furthermore, there is no methodology on how this literature review study was conducted, what were the search criteria. Include some methods and results in tabulated form, even though a full met analysis is not necessary.
Also key references in the field of SCC have been excluded, which is why I would suggest that the aims and objectives, and the search criteria are amended and then the results tabulated including the added references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors appreciate the comments and concerns raised by the reviewer. We believe we have addressed all appropriately.
Authors, see detailed comments and suggestions included in pdf version of the manuscript.
-Please see attached document with responses to comments from PDF. The authors responses are bolded and italicized under the original comment from the manuscript.
A review of such information could be useful, however there are some topics the authors have not considered, i.e. what is the practical implication of the results of such a study.
-The authors believe that this has been addressed throughout. The edits made to the review should address this concern.
Furthermore, there is no methodology on how this literature review study was conducted, what were the search criteria. Include some methods and results in tabulated form, even though a full met analysis is not necessary.
-This Review is not a systematic meta analysis and thus methods are not included as standard for this journal and others.
Also key references in the field of SCC have been excluded, which is why I would suggest that the aims and objectives, and the search criteria are amended and then the results tabulated including the added references.
-Edits made in the manuscript should address these concerns.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript „Association of Milk Somatic Cell Count with Bacteriological 2 Cure of Intramammary Infection – A Review“ deals with mastitis - a topic that is always actual in the dairy industry and which despite new generations of antibiotics still represents a major problem in milk production. This paper provided an excellent review of the recent literature related to the different definitions of mastitis cure (clinical, bacteriological and cytological cure), methods available for enumerating somatic cell count (cow-side methods for assessment of somatic cell count, laboratory-based somatic cell count assessment) and factors that impact infection cure with an emphasis on somatic cell count. The paper is clearly and concisely written and, in my opinion, contains enough detail for a quality review paper.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the comments for this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
To improve the review, it would be good for the authors to make a separate topic describing the forms of intramammary infection such as clinical, subclinical, chronic, etc. Even because later these clinical forms are discussed in the review.
in topic 3.1. Cow-side SCC assessment the authors discuss about the CMT method, could also insert and discuss the following bibliographic reference" Diagnosing mastitis in early lactation: use of Somaticell®, California mastitis test and somatic cell count . Jose A. Ferronatto , Thais C. Ferronatto , Marla Schneider , Lindomar F. Pessoa , Maiara G. Blagitz, Marcos B. Heinemann
Pages 723-729 | https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1426394.
the sentence on the line 106 is confusing
the sentence on the line 117 is confusing
LIne 131 I think the word "expressed" is not the correct word.did the authors mean "squeezed"?
the sentence on the line179 could be "is by far the most time consuming method" instead "is by far the most time consuming".
In topic 3,3 Differential SCC (DSCC) In order to improve the review the authors could discuss about the CD4+ population, which may be a marker associated with non-specific mastitis and could discuss the following bibliographic reference :
" Immune response in nonspecific mastitis: What can it tell us?
F.N. Souza ,M.G. Blagitz, C.F. Batista, P.V. Takano, R.G. Gargano, S.A. Diniz, M.X. Silva, J.A. Ferronatto, K.R. Santos, M.B. Heinemann, S. De Vliegher, A.M.M.P. Della Libera
5376 J. Dairy Sci. 103:5376–5386. https://doi.org/10.316/jds.2019-17022, the Bibliographic Reference indicated where one of the authors is S.; De Vliegher, the author is already cited in this abstract but in an older reference (bibliographic reference number 57)
In line 304-306 the authors wrote"Not only does CNS cause less severe IMI than other mastitis pathogens, but are also associated with lower SCC,
possibly explaining why the chances of antibiotic cure are much higher in comparison to other pathogens". I don't agree because the higher chances of antibiotic cure may be due to the fact that some CNSs do not have antibiotic resistance genes, efflux pumps, etc.
In line 327-331 the authors wrote" almost all studies reported that if pre-treatment SCC was lower, bacteriological cure rate was higher" In this part of the manuscript the authors could point out this fact as a marker or prognostic tool.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have addressed each of them in bold and italics below. The changes can be found in the updated manuscript.
To improve the review, it would be good for the authors to make a separate topic describing the forms of intramammary infection such as clinical, subclinical, chronic, etc. Even because later these clinical forms are discussed in the review.
The authors describe these forms of mastitis in various places, but most predominately in the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction and in section 4.1.1.
in topic 3.1. Cow-side SCC assessment the authors discuss about the CMT method, could also insert and discuss the following bibliographic reference" Diagnosing mastitis in early lactation: use of Somaticell®, California mastitis test and somatic cell count . Jose A. Ferronatto , Thais C. Ferronatto , Marla Schneider , Lindomar F. Pessoa , Maiara G. Blagitz, Marcos B. Heinemann
Pages 723-729 | .
The authors have included this reference.
the sentence on the line 106 is confusing
The authors have edited this sentence.
the sentence on the line 117 is confusing
The authors have edited this sentence.
LIne 131 I think the word "expressed" is not the correct word.did the authors mean "squeezed"?
"Expressed" has been replaced with "collected".
the sentence on the line179 could be "is by far the most time consuming method" instead "is by far the most time consuming".
The authors have edited this sentence.
In topic 3,3 Differential SCC (DSCC) In order to improve the review the authors could discuss about the CD4+ population, which may be a marker associated with non-specific mastitis and could discuss the following bibliographic reference :
" Immune response in nonspecific mastitis: What can it tell us?
F.N. Souza ,M.G. Blagitz, C.F. Batista, P.V. Takano, R.G. Gargano, S.A. Diniz, M.X. Silva, J.A. Ferronatto, K.R. Santos, M.B. Heinemann, S. De Vliegher, A.M.M.P. Della Libera 5376 J. Dairy Sci. 103:5376–5386. https://doi.org/10.316/jds.2019-17022, the Bibliographic Reference indicated where one of the authors is S.; De Vliegher, the author is already cited in this abstract but in an older reference (bibliographic reference number 57)
The authors have read the above paper and included a couple sentences in the manuscript.
In line 304-306 the authors wrote"Not only does CNS cause less severe IMI than other mastitis pathogens, but are also associated with lower SCC,
possibly explaining why the chances of antibiotic cure are much higher in comparison to other pathogens". I don't agree because the higher chances of antibiotic cure may be due to the fact that some CNSs do not have antibiotic resistance genes, efflux pumps, etc.
The authors agree that the wording of the sentence was much too specific and did not include this possibility. The sentence has been edited for correctness.
In line 327-331 the authors wrote" almost all studies reported that if pre-treatment SCC was lower, bacteriological cure rate was higher" In this part of the manuscript the authors could point out this fact as a marker or prognostic tool.
The authors appreciate this observation and suggestion. Edits have been made accordingly.
Reviewer 4 Report
1/ I propose to delete the paragraph (lines 148-159)
2/ incorrect Latin names for bacteria
3/ incorrect abbreviations for Streptococcus
4/ Gram-negative or Gram-positive should be written with a capital letter (because it was Hans Christian Joachim Gram, not Hans Christian Joachim gram)
5/ I have marked the corrections in the attached manuscript (in the comments)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors appreciate the comments provided the reviewer. Our responses can be found numbered below.
- The authors would like to keep the paragraph referenced. They feel that it provides an example, different from the CMT, for cow-side tests available for use. Moreover, the results from peer-reviewed research are interesting and may be beneficial for readers.
- The authors have double-checked the manuscript and italicized all bacteria. We apologize for this error.
- The authors have double-checked the manuscript and remedied concerns. We apologize for this error. In some papers discussing mastitis pathogens, reviewers and editors request this different nomenclature to differentiate. We apologize for not confirming this in Author Guidelines.
- While the authors disagree that in all uses of "Gram" needs to be capitalized (refer to CDC nomenclature as an example), the authors have made modifications accordingly, especially given a few areas of the authors' own inconsistency in use.
- Corrections have been made to the manuscript accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Hi there
I am happy with the review of this manuscript by the authors, in my opinion it is now technically sound for publication.
Thanking you kindly.
Author Response
The authors appreciate your final comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
on line 129 the word "but" could be replaced by the word "since"
The bibliography " Diagnosing mastitis in early lactation: use of Somaticell®, California mastitis test and somatic cell count . Jose A. Ferronatto , Thais C. Ferronatto , Marla Schneider , Lindomar F. Pessoa , Maiara G. Blagitz, Marcos B. Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1426394 " was not included in the manuscript as reported by the authors.
the sentence on lines201-202 could be "is by far the most time consuming method" instead "is by far the most time consuming".
In topic 3,3 Differential SCC (DSCC) In order to improve the review the authors could discuss about the CD4+ population, which may be a marker associated with non-specific mastitis and could discuss the following bibliographic reference :
" Immune response in nonspecific mastitis: What can it tell us?
F.N. Souza ,M.G. Blagitz, C.F. Batista, P.V. Takano, R.G. Gargano, S.A. Diniz, M.X. Silva, J.A. Ferronatto, K.R. Santos, M.B. Heinemann, S. De Vliegher, A.M.M.P. Della Libera 5376 J. Dairy Sci. 103:5376–5386. https://doi.org/10.316/jds.2019-17022, the Bibliographic Reference indicated where one of the authors is S.; De Vliegher, the author is already cited in this abstract but in an older reference (bibliographic reference number 57). the CD4 population was not discused in the manuscript as reported by the authors.(The authors have read the above paper and included a couple sentences in the manuscript)
in the previous coments for the authors :In line 327-331 the authors wrote" almost all studies reported that if pre-treatment SCC was lower, bacteriological cure rate was higher" In this part of the manuscript the authors could point out this fact as a marker or prognostic tool. The authors answer :The authors appreciate this observation and suggestion. Edits have been made accordingly. I could not find this modification as reported by the authors.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments. We must apologize as there were some changes included in the final "Updated" version that somehow were not included in the "UpdateTrackChanges" file. We believe that may explain some of the discrepancy in comments/edits made below. Please accept our apologies for this error.
In line 129 the word "but" could be replaced by the word "since"
-The authors apologize for being unable to find the location of the aforementioned suggestion. The authors scanned the document for all uses of the word "but", however did not identify a specific sentence where "since" could be used instead. Nonetheless, the authors did correct a sentence which did not read correctly beginning at line 127.
The bibliography " Diagnosing mastitis in early lactation: use of Somaticell®, California mastitis test and somatic cell count . Jose A. Ferronatto , Thais C. Ferronatto , Marla Schneider , Lindomar F. Pessoa , Maiara G. Blagitz, Marcos B. Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1426394 " was not included in the manuscript as reported by the authors.
-The authors utilized this reference on lines 180 and 183. It is included in the works cited as number 44.
the sentence on lines201-202 could be "is by far the most time consuming method" instead "is by far the most time consuming".
-In the downloaded current (updatedtrackchanges) version, this is the wording in the manuscript.
In topic 3,3 Differential SCC (DSCC) In order to improve the review the authors could discuss about the CD4+ population, which may be a marker associated with non-specific mastitis and could discuss the following bibliographic reference :
" Immune response in nonspecific mastitis: What can it tell us?
F.N. Souza ,M.G. Blagitz, C.F. Batista, P.V. Takano, R.G. Gargano, S.A. Diniz, M.X. Silva, J.A. Ferronatto, K.R. Santos, M.B. Heinemann, S. De Vliegher, A.M.M.P. Della Libera 5376 J. Dairy Sci. 103:5376–5386. https://doi.org/10.316/jds.2019-17022, the Bibliographic Reference indicated where one of the authors is S.; De Vliegher, the author is already cited in this abstract but in an older reference (bibliographic reference number 57). the CD4 population was not discused in the manuscript as reported by the authors.(The authors have read the above paper and included a couple sentences in the manuscript)
-The new reference (number 64) is included on beginning on line 269 through 276. CD4+ cells were specifically mentioned on line 272 and line 273.
in the previous coments for the authors :In line 327-331 the authors wrote" almost all studies reported that if pre-treatment SCC was lower, bacteriological cure rate was higher" In this part of the manuscript the authors could point out this fact as a marker or prognostic tool. The authors answer :The authors appreciate this observation and suggestion. Edits have been made accordingly. I could not find this modification as reported by the authors.
-Lines 373-374 include "...suggesting the potential for pre-treatment SCC as a prognostic tool in mastitis treatment discussions and strategies." after "...bacteriological cure rate was higher..."
