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.
Your revised manuscript was re-reviewed by two of the original reviewers. They were satisfied with how thoroughly you addressed all their comments. As a result your manuscript is greatly improved and suitable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
In the revised manuscript entitled “Frequencies and subtypes of glycophorin GYP(B-A-B) hybrids among northern Thais, Burmese, and Karen with a previous history of malaria infection: A study in the Thailand-Myanmar Border area”, the authors have addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers. I am happy for this to be published.
The language is clear and provides enough background information with citations.
Provided adequate information
The authors provided a comprehensive rebuttal and addressed my comments and concerns. I am satisfied with the revised manuscript and find it suitable for the publication.
Your manuscript was considered interesting by the reviewers however they had a number of concerns that need to be addressed. First, your introduction needs to be expanded to provide more information on GYP hybrids, the MNS blood system and the Mi antigen as well as more thoroughly address the role of glycophorin variants in malaria susceptibility and include data on the frequency of hybrids in Southeast Asia for context. The materials and methods section needs to provide the sequence of the primers you used for the control PCR reaction as well as the sequencing primers. Since the time elapsed between when your DNA samples were collected and analyzed, it is important to provide information and data on the integrity of your samples, which could affect the validity of your PCR results. Lastly, the reviewers suggested that the discussion be expanded to include the functional implications of your findings on malaria susceptibility and possible reasons for the lack of a statistically significant association.
Please, submit a detailed rebuttal which shows where and how you have taken all comments and suggestions into consideration. If you do not agree with some of the reviewers’ comments or suggestions, please explain why. Your rebuttal will be critical in making a final decision on your manuscript. Please, note also that your revised version may enter a new round of review by the same or by different reviewers. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that your manuscript will eventually be accepted.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Language and Clarity-
While the manuscript is well-written, some sentences are complex and may benefit from simplification for better readability. Consider revising sentences with intricate structures to enhance clarity.
Line 23: "Due to the area is mostly forest-fringe foothills" → Consider rewording for clarity.
Line 128: "The obtained results will provide insight association between glycophorin GYP(B-A-B) hybrids and malaria infection." → This phrase is unclear.
Introduction Justification & Background-
The introduction provides relevant background but does not clearly define the knowledge gap being addressed. The authors should:
Expand on the known role of glycophorin variants in malaria.
Include frequency data on glycophorin hybrids in Southeast Asia for better comparison.
Figure 1 (Geographic Map) Improvements-
Add a scale bar if missing.
Improve labeling of malaria prevalence in different regions.
If available, overlay malaria incidence rates for better visualization.
DNA Sample Integrity Over Extended Storage Period-
The DNA samples were collected between July 25, 2006, and June 12, 2007, and analyzed in April 2024, indicating a 17-year storage period. While DNA can remain stable under optimal conditions, the manuscript does not provide details about the storage environment (e.g., temperature, preservation medium) or any quality control (QC) assessments before analysis. DNA degradation over time can impact PCR amplification and sequencing accuracy, potentially affecting study conclusions.
Recommendations:
Provide storage conditions (e.g., temperature, buffer used).
Include QC data (e.g., DNA concentration, purity ratios, gel electrophoresis images).
Clarify whether degraded samples were excluded from the analysis.
Figure 4 (DNA Sequence Chromatogram) Enhancements-
Increase arrow size marking key nucleotide positions.
Add a zoomed-in inset for critical regions.
Compare with a homozygous control for reference
Clarification of Glycophorin Variant Implications-
The study examines GYP(B-A-B) hybrid frequencies among ethnic groups but does not elaborate on their functional implications for malaria susceptibility. Prior studies have shown that glycophorin variants (e.g., Dantu and DUP4) can reduce malaria risk by modifying red blood cell properties.
Recommendations:
Discuss whether GYP(B-A-B) hybrids influence malaria susceptibility (e.g., by altering parasite binding sites).
Compare findings with existing malaria-protective glycophorin variants to provide broader context.
Statistical Power and Confounding Factors-
The study did not find a significant association between glycophorin hybrids and malaria history. This could be due to:
Small sample sizes in some groups (e.g., Karen individuals with malaria history, n=16).
Potential confounders, such as malaria exposure levels, genetic background, and Plasmodium species differences, which were not controlled for.
NA
1. The English language should be improved and needs punctuations and grammatical check. For example, line 71-73, 76-78 and 87-89 makes it difficult to read.
2. The introduction needs more details on MNS blood system, GYP hybrids, Mi antigens and justification for line 128-129 “enhance malaria treatment and control strategies”. Also, more information on transfusion and alloimmunization will be helpful for general audience.
3. In Table 1, the font size of Notes “a-d, #’ is difficult to read.
No Comment
No comment
In the manuscript entitled “Frequencies and subtypes of glycophorin GYP(B-A-B) hybrids among northern Thais, Burmese, and Karen with a previous history of malaria infection: a study in the Thailand-Myanmar border area” the authors Srichankhot P. et al. presented the distribution of Glycophorin hybrid gene (B-A-B) polymorphism and it’s association with malaria infection in the population along Thailand-Myanmar border. The authors have also presented different techniques for screening the genotyping analysis – PCR-based, High-resolution melting (HRM), and Sanger sequencing that could identify hybrid glycophorins to provide compatible blood products for transfusion, thereby preventing alloimmunization. Overall, the paper is well written but needs to be improved for more clarity. Enhancements could be made by addressing the issues noted below.
Major comments
1. Lines 148-150: For the genotyping using PCRs, the authors cited Lin et al., 2019 for PCR-SSP that amplified 158 bp of GYP (B-A-B) variants. However, the primers used for internal control of human growth hormone gene were neither included in the text nor provided any citation from the previous studies. Similarly, Lines 166-168: for Sanger sequencing, “383 bp of product using a pair of primers that was previously described (Haer-Wigman et al., 2013)”. The referred article has a different notation of GYP variants from the current manuscript and is extremely difficult for the reader to decode the primer set used for the amplification and subsequent Sanger sequencing. For the easy access to the readers to use the same sets of primers for further studies, it is better to provide all the sequences of primers used in the study as a supplementary table with citations.
2. English language should be improved to ensure the readers have better clarity. The statements are incomplete at several places in the introduction due to misappropriate use of punctuations. Lines 71-73: “Although there are five species of Plasmodium capable of infecting humans. In Thailand, malaria is dominantly infected by P. vivax (47%) and P. falciparum (44%) (Jongruamklang et al., 2018).” The text in the quotes should be a single statement. The same thing applies to lines 87-88.
3. The image resolutions of image 3 and image 4 are very poor.
No comment
No comment
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.