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.
Thank you for your response and revision point-to-point according to the reviewers’ comments.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Siouxsie Wiles, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
no comments
no comments
no comments
Thank you for sending revised version. It is acceptable in the present form
no comment
no comment
no comment
There is no further question for the manuscript
Please read the reviewer comments one by one,and revise your manuscript. Especially, revise it according to Reviewer 2 comments.
The paper is well written. It is clear and easy to read. It is an extensive epidemiological work based on PRV strains isolated in China. The background is relevant and the references are appropiated. Figures and tables are relevant
Methodology is described with sufficient detail to replicate by others. The analysis of the strains contributes to reevaluate the use of those types of vaccines in China
Data obtained were robust and very important in the epidemiology of PRV in China. References are well used througout the paper
I strongly recommend the publication of the work with minor changes. Please see a pdf attached to this review
no comment
The PRV was outbreak in late 2011. Epidemiological survey that cover the period before and after 2011 and compare the situation of clinical infection and the genetic diversity of PRV before and after 2011 will be more meaningful.
no comment
The manuscript investigated the prevalence of PRV from 2012 to 2017 in 27 provinces of China. A total of 16256 samples collected from large-scale farms suspected of PRV infection, and the positive rates of PRV, 5.57% to 12.19% for 2012-2017, were given. Some positive samples were DNA sequenced and aligned. The study has a large sample size and introduces the situation of clinical infection in detail.
> The PRV was outbreak in late 2011. Epidemiological survey that cover the period before and after 2011 and compare the situation of clinical infection and the genetic diversity of PRV before and after 2011 will be more meaningful.
> How about the situation of small farms in the backyard? Since the backyard farms usually don’t carry out good vaccination, when compared with large-scale farms.
> There is no further discussion and analysis on the results of PRV positive detection in different regions in different years.
> In the Abstract, please clearly give the method for determining wild-type virus. PCR or ELISA?
>“Of the 16256 samples detected, approximately 1345 samples were positive for the detection of PRV-gE,”the word " approximately " need to be removed.
>“To understand the genetic characteristics of PRVs currently circulating in China, a total of 25 PRV strains isolated herein were used for further analysis in this study” Why did the authors choose these 25 isolates? Are they representative?
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.