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.
Thanks for addressing all comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
In line with previous evaluations, the authors have corrected the relevant parts. They also appear to have checked the entire text for grammar and spelling rules.
The material and methods section has been revised and made clearer.
The findings are stated clearly.
I believe that the revised version is sufficient. Thank you.
Please address all reviewers comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**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
The introduction section includes detailed virological and morphological characteristics of the virus; however, the overall flow could benefit from clearer transitions between paragraphs. It would be more effective to provide background information on the clinical manifestations of the virus in cats, the challenges associated with its treatment, the populations most in need of antiviral therapy, and diagnostic approaches used to identify these cases. Including this information would better support the rationale and objectives of the study. Additionally, the hypothesis should be more clearly stated alongside the aim of the study.
It is also recommended that transitions between paragraphs be reviewed in terms of fluency and rationality.
Since this section contains too many specific and technical details, some parts need to be clarified (selection criteria, method preference, etc.).
The findings are explained comprehensively. However, additional comments are provided in the file and below.
The discussion section is detailed, and the findings are well-explained. I believe this study has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the development of practical treatment protocols that can be applied in clinical practice. However, due to the study’s highly specific and technical nature, it may be challenging for general veterinary clinicians to fully grasp its clinical relevance. Therefore, adding a paragraph that highlights its clinical significance would enhance the applicability and impact of the manuscript. Additionally, considering that certain technical aspects fall outside my area of expertise, I recommend that the materials and methods section, particularly the technical procedures, be reviewed by referees with expertise in the relevant methodologies to ensure accuracy and completeness.
Thank you.
Some minor typographical issues and grammatical inconsistencies
The introduction could benefit from a clearer statement of the novelty of this study in relation to prior FIPV docking studies.
The figure legends need to be more self-explanatory; for instance, figures showing RMSD/RMSF should include interpretations of what specific fluctuations imply.
Clearly define what is meant by “artificial intelligence” in the title—does it refer to specific ML tools or predictive algorithms?
Consider including redocking validation or RMSD between predicted and experimental N3 pose to demonstrate the reliability of the docking protocol.
There is no negative control or decoy compound to assess specificity.
All results are in silico; the conclusion calls for in vitro/in vivo validation, but this could be further emphasized as a limitation.
None
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.