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.
Dear Authors,
I would like to compliment with you for the efforts provided in addressing the Reviewers' comments.
All Reviewers now fell that your manuscript has reached the level of publication and can be accepted in its current form.
Best regards
Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia
PeerJ Academic Editor
no comment
non comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Authors,
The Reviewers are favorable to the publication of your manuscript in PeerJ after a minor revision.
Please incorporate or discuss the suggested changes and submit a revised version of your manuscript in order to achieve publication.
Best regards
Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia
PeerJ Academic Editor
The article meets all basic reporting criteria.
The work is original and the study design is appropriate and clearly explained. The methods are well described and the analyses and presentation of results are adequate.
The investigators establish the poor level of protection against pertussis in both mothers and infants in a Thai population, setting the stage for additional work in support of maternal immunization with Tdap. Interestingly, this work in a location where whole cell pertussis vaccine is given to infants provides an opportunity to understand the role of adolescent and maternal vaccination with acellular pertussis vaccine followed by whole cell vaccine in infants.
The discussion and conclusions of this study are well stated and supported by the data presented.
Well written manuscript, with relevant and up to date references, clear description of methods, analyses and results. The figures are illustrative of the key findings of the study.
Figure 1, showing the distribution of declared pertussis cases according to age from 2011 up to 2016 is not very informative, as only for 2015 (n=51) and 2016 (n=72) the figures can be split in reasonable numbers. I would suggest to put the data of Figure 1 in a Table and also indicate how many of the cases were laboratory defined and by what method.
No comment
One minor comment on the conclusions:
-Line 149 states: There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of recently infected rates in women born before or after the EPI program: statistics on 1 vs 2 cases? This can not be used for a statistical analysis
A general comment:
Line 227: Our results explained the susceptibility for pertussis among newborn infants in Thailand and supported the requirement for a pertussis booster vaccine during pregnancy. It is clear that pertussis booster vaccination during pregnancy will increase the antibodies in newborns, but it is also clear there are no actual correlates of protection for pertussis. Although antibodies to PT and Prn certainly play a role in protection, there is also evidence that other factors such as local IgA levels and cell-mediated immune responses are important.
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.