Cryptosporidiosis in Reptiles from Brazil: An Update for Veterinary Medicine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the diagnosis section, please add discussion about the used microscopy method when talking about: “ Furthermore, discordance has been found between the results from microscopic 5/56 (8,9%) and immunological techniques for de-tecting antigens of Cryptosporidium spp 34/56 (60.7%)” and add some discussion about global perfmormances of ELISA method versus microscopic ones.
Author Response
Responding to the referee, we added, in the diagnosis section, some advantages and disadvantages of using microscopy, immunological and molecular techniques.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall comment:
An interesting review paper describing the current knowledge on Cryptosporidium in reptile species. Species distributions, zoonoses, method analysis, and control are reviewed.
Minor comments
Abstract please add the bold text to 'some of them with zoonotic potential such as the genus'
Section 1 Introduction second last paragraph spelling error: 'keeping exotic or wild animals as pets may pose a risk to human health.'
Also on this point, you need to include more information on human infectious species in order to justify this point. You have mentioned there could be a risk to human health and then gone on to say that no transmission between reptiles and humans has been documented. Further evidence to back this claim is required. You might consider humans as a risk to the reptiles themselves?
Section 2 paragraph 3 'According to Ryan et al.' This is an incomplete sentence, consider rewording.
Section 3 paragraph 6 'infection rate could be underestimated due to techniques employed'. What techniques were these and how does this compare with other methods regarding sensitivity and specificity?
Author Response
Abstract please add the bold text to 'some of them with zoonotic potential such as the genus'
R: Done
Section 1 Introduction second last paragraph spelling error: 'keeping exotic or wild animals as pets may pose a risk to human health.'
R: Done
Also on this point, you need to include more information on human infectious species to justify this point. You have mentioned there could be a risk to human health and then gone on to say that no transmission between reptiles and humans has been documented. Further evidence to back this claim is required. You might consider humans as a risk to the reptiles themselves?
R: More information about infectious in humans was included in the text. It is important to emphasize that it is difficult to differentiate pathogenic oocysts from those which merely pass through the gastrointestinal tract. This fact may contribute to reptiles serving as passive hosts and then dispersing the protozoa to new areas.
Until recent studies, no infections in humans have been linked with reptilian Cryptosporidium species (Zahedi et al., 2016), conform to Zahedi and Ryan (2020) and Santos et al. (2019) related. Nevertheless, the zoonotic potential of Cryptosporidium is still a subject of considerable discussion.
Humans as a risk to the reptiles was added in the text. Nonetheless, anthropic influence on the environment has been constantly cited as a potential risk factor and cross-transmission of pathogens between wild, domestic animals, and humans (Graczyk et al., 2002 (Cited in the text) and the practice to euthanize Cryptosporidium-infected reptiles, such as snakes, as a control measure, which would prevent the spread of infection to other animals is not recommended. This control strategy can lead to the killing of uninfected animals (Plutzer and Karanis, 2007) was added in the text.
Section 2 paragraph 3 'According to Ryan et al.' This is an incomplete sentence, consider rewording.
R: Done
Section 3 paragraph 6 'infection rate could be underestimated due to techniques employed'. What techniques were these and how does this compare with other methods regarding sensitivity and specificity?
R: Refers to Karasawa (2002) study. They used parasitological technics (fecal concentration and fecal smear), and studies that used Detection of anti-Cryptosporidium antibodies in serum, as well as antigens in the feces of snakes, have shown a respective prevalence of 73% and 89% found in (higher levels found against 14% of positive snakes on their study). We modified the text.
The English language was verified.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is relevant and encourages the study of the biodiversity and distribution of Cryptosporidium spp. in reptiles; however, I think the article is too brief for a review article. The authors could explore more about Cryptosporidium spp. recovered from reptiles, relating the species and genotypes according to the different hosts, groups and geographic localities, presenting in a table, possibly. In this way, it would be possible to know more about the distribution of the species in the hosts and localities. It could also be explored what are the main methods of morphological (including differential Safranin, Ziehl-Neelsen, etc.) and molecular identification, indicating suitable primers for specific/genotypic differentiation, etc.
Author Response
A diagnosis section was added to the text. A table presenting the data from Brazil was provided.
