Review History

To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 1st, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 23rd, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 26th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 5th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


All minor concerns have been addressed.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Two experts in E. coli genomics and in microbial pathogenesis/epidemiology have looked at your manuscript and made useful suggestions for improvement. Apart from that, the manuscript needs slight editing to improve readability..

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The article is written in clear English with sufficient introduction and background. All relevant prior literature is appropriately referenced. The figures are relevant to the article and appropriately described and labeled.

Experimental design

The submission describes original primary research and clearly defines a research question that is adequately addressed. There is a high technical standard of the work performed.

Validity of the findings

The data in this study is robust and statistically sound. The data is available via public databases. All conclusions are appropriately stated and backed up with the data presented.

Comments for the author

This is a nice, straightforward study

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

- Lines 69 and 80: Please, correct typing errors.
- Line 158: Do the authors mean "two subtypes"? Please, correct it.
- Please, correct titles of supplementary figures 3 (stx2a) and 4 (stx2c).
- Please, reverse the order of graphs in supplementary figures 3 and 4.

Experimental design

- Line 135: Can the authors clarify how they calculated the 1200 score of the three stx2a-matched queries with query sequence of 600 bp?

Validity of the findings

- Line 261: The authors stated that 21 stx2a alleles were previously identified in the NCBI nucleotide database. However, in Fig. 5, they show 22 previously identified alleles.

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.