Local Inflammatory and Systemic Antibody Responses Initiated by a First Intradermal Administration of Autogenous Salmonella-Killed Vaccines and Their Components in Pullets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study assessed local and systemic antibody responses initiated by i.d. injection of 18-day-old regenerating GF-pulps from 14-15-week-old pullets with Salmonella-killed vaccines and vaccine components. This work has the potential to provide valuable insights into vaccine preparation. However, there are a few aspects and details that require revision to enhance the manuscript:
1）The current abstract lacks a clear logical flow, encompassing the purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions of the study. It is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract to ensure it is concise yet comprehensive. The abstract should begin with a brief introduction stating the research gap and objectives, followed by a summary of the experimental methods, key findings, and finally, a concise conclusion outlining the study's significance.
2）Introduction Section:
The literature cited in the introduction, particularly regarding methods for preventing and controlling Salmonella infections, appears outdated. It is advisable to update the references to include more recent publications that reflect the current state of knowledge and advancements in the field. This will strengthen the foundation and relevance of the study.
3）Figure 4:
The authors should re-evaluate the y-axis scale of Figure 4 based on the actual distribution of the results. An appropriately scaled y-axis can improve the clarity and interpretability of the data, ensuring that key features and trends are accurately represented. Consider adjusting the scale to encompass the full range of values while avoiding unnecessary empty space or truncation of important data points.
Overall, the study presents an interesting investigation into the immune responses elicited by Salmonella vaccines in chickens. With the suggested revisions to the abstract, the updating of outdated literature in the introduction, and the refinement of Figure 4, the manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of vaccine development and immunology.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Shortening some of the long sentences, such as those in lines 78 to 82, would be beneficial in making the text clearer and easier for readers to comprehend
Author Response
Comments 1: The current abstract lacks a clear logical flow, encompassing the purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions of the study. It is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract to ensure it is concise yet comprehensive. The abstract should begin with a brief introduction stating the research gap and objectives, followed by a summary of the experimental methods, key findings, and finally, a concise conclusion outlining the study's significance.
Response 1: We appreciate your feedback. We have carefully rewritten the abstract to provide a clearer logical flow. The revised abstract now begins with a brief introduction outlining the research gap and objectives, followed by a concise summary of the experimental methods, key findings, and a conclusion that highlights the study's significance. We appreciate your guidance in helping to improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of this section.
Comments 2: Introduction Section- The literature cited in the introduction, particularly regarding methods for preventing and controlling Salmonella infections, appears outdated. It is advisable to update the references to include more recent publications that reflect the current state of knowledge and advancements in the field. This will strengthen the foundation and relevance of the study.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Upon review, we would like to clarify that 4 out of the 21 references cited in the introduction are from the last 4 years, reflecting recent advancements in methods for preventing and controlling Salmonella infections. We have carefully selected these references to ensure that both foundational and contemporary research are represented. However, we recognize the importance of incorporating more up-to-date literature and have revised the introduction to include additional recent publications to further strengthen the study’s foundation and relevance, particularly regarding methods for preventing and controlling Salmonella; please see two recent references (5 and 6).
Comments 3: Figure 4- The authors should re-evaluate the y-axis scale of Figure 4 based on the actual distribution of the results. An appropriately scaled y-axis can improve the clarity and interpretability of the data, ensuring that key features and trends are accurately represented. Consider adjusting the scale to encompass the full range of values while avoiding unnecessary empty space or truncation of important data points.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. After re-evaluating the figure based on the actual distribution of the data, we agree that adjusting the y-scale of Figure 4 can improve the clarity and interpretability. We have modified the y-axis to better encompass the full range of values, avoiding unnecessary space while ensuring that all key features and trends are accurately represented. The y-axis of the updated figure is now 3.2 instead of 4.5 and is included in the revised manuscript.
Comments 4: Shortening some of the long sentences, such as those in lines 78 to 82, would be beneficial in making the text clearer and easier for readers to comprehend
Response 4: We appreciate your feedback. We have reviewed the text, particularly lines 78 to 82 (now two sentences; lines 76-86), and revised these sentences to improve readability and comprehension. The changes aim to make the information more concise and accessible to readers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsREVIEWER'S REPORT
Manucsript title: Localinflammatory and systemic antibody-responses initiated by a first intradermal administration of autogenous Salmonella-killed vaccines and their components in pullets (Authors: Santamaria et al).
This work, in my opinion, is quite relevant, well conducted experiments and carefully statistically analysed data outcomes. The manuscript is written in reasonably decent English, and it could definitely be published in this journal. However, the article's text in many places is overdetailed, giving impression that authors wrote more for themselves than for the readers. It's like reading a tedious methodological instruction rather than a research paper. I recommend corrections in certain textual places, specifically:
Abstract. A strange beginning of the abstract, which starts immediately with the description of the methodology. To my mind, in order to attract reader's attention, the first phrases should briefly introduce with key theme of this investigation, emphasizing the relevance of this work. The first phrases should be taken from Introduction, which is well-written and clearly captures the work's subject, well describes the primary goals.
Statistical Analysis. The statistical methodology is quite consistent and well-described. This subsection should include references.
In Discussion. It is not entirely clear what is being discussed in this subsection. It looks like a reiteration of what is described in the Result subsection.
In Conclusion. The work findings are described in compressed form, reiterating the results and discussion. Thus, what are the key findings of this study? What is this work's novelty? This should be emphasized in this subsection.
Samething is amiss with the semantics of the sentence in lines 589-591, which might be paraphrased as follows " Three key findings were drawn from analysing the local tissue leukocyte recruitment profiles and systemic SE-specific IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses following i.d. GF-pulp injection with autogenous Salmonella-killed vaccines and their components".
Similar sentences can be found in other textual locations. The authors should thoroughly review the entire article's text.
Overall, this study is important and well-done, but its description is excessively detailed, making it unlikely to capture the attention of a reader interested in this or a related field of research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is fairly acceptable, in my opinion. Just small corrections are required.
Author Response
Comments 1: Abstract. A strange beginning of the abstract, which starts immediately with the description of the methodology. To my mind, in order to attract reader's attention, the first phrases should briefly introduce with key theme of this investigation, emphasizing the relevance of this work. The first phrases should be taken from Introduction, which is well-written and clearly captures the work's subject, well describes the primary goals.
Response 1: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the abstract. We have carefully rewritten the abstract to provide a clearer logical flow. The revised abstract now begins with a brief introduction outlining the research gap and objectives, followed by a concise summary of the experimental methods, key findings, and a conclusion that highlights the study's significance. We appreciate your guidance in helping to improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of this section.
Comments 2: Statistical Analysis. The statistical methodology is quite consistent and well-described. This subsection should include references.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We agree that including references would further strengthen this section. We have now added relevant citations to support the statistical methods described, ensuring consistency with best practices and providing additional context for readers.
Comments 3: In Discussion. It is not entirely clear what is being discussed in this subsection. It looks like a reiteration of what is described in the Result subsection.
Response 3: We appreciate your feedback. After careful consideration, we respectfully disagree with your assessment that this subsection merely reiterates the Results. We have ensured that each result is thoroughly discussed and interpreted in the context of existing literature, providing insight into its relevance and implications. While some overlap with the Results section is necessary for clarity, the discussion serves a distinct purpose by focusing on interpretation rather than description. We believe this approach is essential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the findings.
Comments 4: In Conclusion. The work findings are described in compressed form, reiterating the results and discussion. Thus, what are the key findings of this study? What is this work's novelty? This should be emphasized in this subsection.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. However, we respectfully disagree with your assessment that the Conclusion section merely reiterates the results and discussion. We have deliberately summarized the key findings to ensure clarity and coherence, highlighting the novel aspects of the study. We believe the current form of the Conclusion effectively emphasizes the significance and novelty of our work. However, we appreciate your perspective and have made slight adjustments to further reinforce the unique contributions of this study.
Comments 5: Samething is amiss with the semantics of the sentence in lines 589-591, which might be paraphrased as follows " Three key findings were drawn from analysing the local tissue leukocyte recruitment profiles and systemic SE-specific IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses following i.d. GF-pulp injection with autogenous Salmonella-killed vaccines and their components".
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Upon review, we agree that the sentence in lines 589-591 (now lines 595-597) could benefit from improved clarity. We have rephrased it as follows to better convey the intended meaning: "Three key insights were drawn from assessing the local tissue leukocyte recruitment profiles and systemic SE-specific IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses following i.d. GF-pulp injection with autogenous Salmonella-killed vaccines and their components." We believe this revision makes the sentence clearer and more precise.
Comments 6: Similar sentences can be found in other textual locations. The authors should thoroughly review the entire article's text.
Response 6: We appreciate your observation and have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript for similar sentences that may benefit from rephrasing for clarity and precision. Where necessary, we have revised these sentences to ensure the text is clear and consistent throughout the article.
Comments 7: Overall, this study is important and well-done, but its description is excessively detailed, making it unlikely to capture the attention of a reader interested in this or a related field of research.
Response 7: Thank you for your observation. We understand your concern about the level of detail in the description. However, we believe that this level of detail is necessary, as this is the first study to assess local tissue/cellular and systemic immune responses to Salmonella-killed vaccines in egg-type chickens. The detailed description is essential for laying the foundation for further studies of this type and providing a comprehensive understanding of the methodology and results. These details will be valuable for researchers who wish to build on this work in the future. We hope you understand our rationale for maintaining this level of detail while also striving to ensure the manuscript remains accessible to a wide readership.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreat manuscript, I liked it , it has very good organization of the introduction, methods and results, it is easy to read and it has a very good presentation oof the results and discussion.
I include the manuscript with two little comments, one important in my opinion referred to the organization of the information in a point of the methodology
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: I include the manuscript with two little comments, one important in my opinion referred to the organization of the information in a point of the methodology
Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for appreciating our manuscript's organization, clarity, and presentation. We are grateful for your thoughtful review and highlighting areas you found well-executed. Regarding your important comment on the organization of information in a specific part of the methodology, we have carefully reviewed and addressed it to improve clarity and flow. The revised version reflects these changes, and we believe it enhances the overall structure of the Methods section. The changes can be observed in lines lines 93-94. Also, based on your comment on lines 436-438 (now 439-442), we added a new sentence to increase the manuscript's value (lines 442-445).
