All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all the comments. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. Other than the minor comments from the reviewer, I have no further comments. Please revise.
Comments attached for reference
Comments attached for reference
Comments attached for reference
Comments attached for reference
In this manuscript, the authors have used computational approaches to design a multi-epitope vaccine candidate for the Kyasanur Forest Disease (KFD) virus. This work is quite interesting. Please see my comments below:
Line 42; Cite references supporting the statement.
Lines 49-55; To make it clear please include text (a few lines) mentioning the structural protein encoded by the single polyprotein mentioned in line 50.
Lines 56-57; "Systematic treatment... approved drug against KFDV"- Please rephrase this sentence to make it clear.
Lines 56-59, 66-67; Cite references to support the statement.
Line 98-99; "Prioritized B- and T-cell epitopes from the envelope protein of KFDV were used for the vaccine design" - Fix the sentence
Lines 109-110; Provide the accession numbers of the data used in this study.
Lines 123-124; Fix the sentence
Line 128; Provide reference for Figtree
Line 131; Include weblink for NetMHCpan EL 4.1 and NetMHCIIpan 3.2. Please provide the link to online tools/web servers throughout the manuscript.
Lines 243-246, 286-290, 292-295, 311-312: move the text to the method section.
Line 278; Please provide a cutoff (threshold) which is used to consider whether the quality of the model is good or bad. And cite the reference to support the statement.
Line 301; Provide the full form of RMSF.
Figure 1: Design section: Replace the arrow between the B-cell epitope and T-cell epitope. At present, the arrow is giving the impression that the T-cell epitopes were predicted from B-cell epitopes.
Too many figures and tables in the main manuscript. Please include some of them in the supplementary material.
Review report is attached
Review report is attached
Review report is attached
Review report is attached
No comment
No explicit research question
No comments
Additional computational predictions required: Il-4, IL-10, toxicity and allergenicity
This submission needs revision.
See report
See report
1. Abstract: Please mention about the viral proteins wherefrom the epitopes were selected.
2. Introduction: Add recent anti-viral and anti-pathogenic vaccine discoveries through reverse phase vaccinology for translation to therapeutic use.
3. Methods: Section 2.2 can be shortened.
4. Figure: Figure 2 and 3 as well as Figure 4 and 5 can be merged to reduced 4 to 2 Figures. Figure legends need elaboration.
5. Tables: Table 1 can be moved to supplementary Material.
6. Roles of different TLRs in mediating and regulating innate immune response to pathogen and exploitation of the same as vaccine targets should be elaborated
7. A few sentences are unclear and may require rephrasing, a thorough check is required.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.