SARS-CoV-2: An Update on the Biological Interplay with the Human Host
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work presented for review is very interesting. It contains a set of current, documented hypotheses related to the variability of the virus and its interactions with the human immune system. I have no criticisms other than changing the italics in paragraph 5.4.
Author Response
We are thankful for these valuable comments on our work. Paragraph has been corrected, as suggested
Reviewer 2 Report
In this review, the authors summarized the latest information about SARS-CoV-2, including the genomic structure, biological characteristics, evolution and mutation, cellular entry mechanisms, etc. Overall, the manuscript is well written. I believe it could be accepted for publication when the following issues are addressed:
1. There are some minor typos, such as SARAS-CoV-2 (line 126) and TMPRRS2 (figure 3), please check and revise all the main text.
2. Line 138, please specify positive of what? PCR or RAT or live virus titer?
3. Line 152, 1.26-7 ×106.25 should be 1.26-7 ×106.25.
4. Line 192, are there any data/statistics about how many fold/percentage increase in stability of virus particles?
5. SARS-CoV-2 variants have different replication capacities in upper and lower respiratory epithelial cells as demonstrated by studies using ex vivo human primary tissues, primary cell culture, and organoids. The higher replication of new variants (e.g. Omicron) in the upper airway epithelium may contribute to the increased infectivity of these viruses. Please consider describing this important feature in part 3.3 or part 4.
6. Line 420, 8.6±1.5×107 should be 8.6±1.5×107.
7. The formatting of part 5.4 is different from the other parts. Please fix it.
Author Response
In this review, the authors summarized the latest information about SARS-CoV-2, including the genomic structure, biological characteristics, evolution and mutation, cellular entry mechanisms, etc. Overall, the manuscript is well written. I believe it could be accepted for publication when the following issues are addressed:
- We are thankful for these valuable comments on our work. We will do our best to improve the manuscript according the suggestions.
- There are some minor typos, such as SARAS-CoV-2 (line 126) and TMPRRS2 (figure 3), please check and revise all the main text.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Both corrected, as suggested.
- Line 138, please specify positive of what? PCR or RAT or live virus titer?
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Specified, a suggested “progressive decrease in the time infected patients remain positive to molecular tests”.
- Line 152, 1.26-7 ×106.25 should be 1.26-7 ×106.25.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Corrected as suggested.
- Line 192, are there any data/statistics about how many fold/percentage increase in stability of virus particles?
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Unfortunately not. The authors only reported viability studies and timing, but not direct fold/percentage of increase in their study.
- SARS-CoV-2 variants have different replication capacities in upper and lower respiratory epithelial cells as demonstrated by studies using ex vivo human primary tissues, primary cell culture, and organoids. The higher replication of new variants (e.g. Omicron) in the upper airway epithelium may contribute to the increased infectivity of these viruses. Please consider describing this important feature in part 3.3 or part 4.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. This aspect has now been introduced in section 3.3, as follows with a pertinent reference): “Importantly, SARS-CoV-2 variants show heterogeneous replication potential in upper and lower respiratory epithelial cells as demonstrated by studies using ex vivo human primary tissues, primary cell culture, and organoids. Thus, the higher replication of new variants (e.g. Omicron) in the upper airway epithelium may contribute to their increased infectivity [29].”
- Line 420, 8.6±1.5×107 should be 8.6±1.5×107.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Corrected as suggested.
- The formatting of part 5.4 is different from the other parts. Please fix it.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Corrected as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled " SARS-CoV-2: An update on the biological interplay with the human host" is an interesting article.
However, I have the following concerns to be addressed before the acceptance of the manuscript.
In the abstract I would like to see more about that why this update is required as there is already extensive amount of literature already available. The same goes with the introduction, elaborate the relevance of the literature review.
> Rather than saying the section 2 as the pathogen, I suggest mentioning it as genetic architecture of SARS-CoV-2.
or alternatively, First provide the salient features of the SARS-CoV-2 under the section 2 viz., The Pathogen
and then make a section 2.1 with the genetic architecture.
It will definitely simply the chronology of the manuscript.
Section 3:
in the 3.1 there is not much recent and authentic references, Please use the following:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112816
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113522
Please elaborate subsection 3.4 more scientifically as this is interesting to read.
Section 4:
In this section the authors must talk about the variants in the form of table and highlight the major mutations.
The table can be used from the following manuscript:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2023.09.004.
Figure 3: is not self-explanatory. This can be improved to make it more explanatory.
I suggest, if possible, please provide the future directions or perspectives before the conclusion.
Such as, how the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 can be monitored?
What are the advancements in the vaccines and therapeutic measures which can be of future use.
Best Regards
The English used is readable and of good quality. However, the deep checks required for any possible grammatical errors.
Author Response
The manuscript entitled " SARS-CoV-2: An update on the biological interplay with the human host" is an interesting article. However, I have the following concerns to be addressed before the acceptance of the manuscript.
- We are thankful for these valuable comments on our work. We will do our best to improve the manuscript according the suggestions.
In the abstract I would like to see more about that why this update is required as there is already extensive amount of literature already available. The same goes with the introduction, elaborate the relevance of the literature review.
- ANSWER: This was a commissioned review. So, the update was requested by the journal We did not have any other reasons for doing so other than that.
> Rather than saying the section 2 as the pathogen, I suggest mentioning it as genetic architecture of SARS-CoV-2. or alternatively, First provide the salient features of the SARS-CoV-2 under the section 2 viz., The Pathogen and then make a section 2.1 with the genetic architecture. It will definitely simply the chronology of the manuscript.
- ANSWER: We understand the comment of the referee, but do not agree. We want to keep the layout of the article as it is now, since – according to us – this would me much more easy to follow. This is indeed a personal opinion, but we prefer to stay with our conviction, since also the other 2 referees were completely in keeping with this format.
in the 3.1 there is not much recent and authentic references, Please use the following: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112816, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113522
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. The two references have been added.
Please elaborate subsection 3.4 more scientifically as this is interesting to read.
- ANSWER: Thanks for this comment. Done, as follows: “Overall, it has been estimated that nearly 2% of cases infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be directly responsible for 20% of all infections, and that infected nonelderly cases (i.e., those aged less than 60 years) may be up to threefold more infectious, thus being usually the main biological source of superspread [33]. This is supported by a recent study that showed that 11% of subjects emitted 86% of the total volume of airborne virus, most within three days of symptom onset, and that viral emissions correlated strongly with viral load in nasal swabs [34]. Interestingly, individuals with higher number of symptoms were not the ones who emitted the higher volume of viral particle. Then, very few emissions were found before the first reported symptom (i.e., less than 10%) and this very rarely occurred before the first positivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigenic test (~2%) [34].”
Section 4: In this section the authors must talk about the variants in the form of table and highlight the major mutations. The table can be used from the following manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2023.09.004.
- ANSWER: Good point, thanks. New table (Table 1) included.
Figure 3: is not self-explanatory. This can be improved to make it more explanatory.
- ANSWER: Good point, thanks. Done, as suggested.
I suggest, if possible, please provide the future directions or perspectives before the conclusion. Such as, how the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 can be monitored? What are the advancements in the vaccines and therapeutic measures which can be of future use.
- ANSWER: Good point, thanks. Done, as suggested: “To this end, wastewater monitoring and regular sequencing of positive samples will allow early detection of new variants that can dramatically impact disease epidemiology. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry must keep pace with the evolving genetics of SARS-CoV-2 by developing and marketing COVID-19 vaccines that must be regularly updated to more effectively combat the still deleterious effects of this virus on human health.”.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I do appreciate the efforts given but the suggestion and the comments which could have make the manuscript significantly of high quality has not been considered.
At first authors replied:
This was a commissioned review. So, the update was requested by the journal We did not have any other reasons for doing so other than that.
>> I am asking about why this review will be helpful amid the huge amount of already published data and literature,,
The scientific reason required.
The table incorporated has no significant amount of information.
Moreover, the similar amount of information is already available to the world, this work will not add up any new information to the scientific world.
Best Wishes
English is acceptable and easy to follow
Author Response
No further reply to this comments. The referee does not find any purpose for this work which HAS BEEN REQUESTED by the journal.
So, the Editor will need to take an executive decision, since there is nothing else we can add to this comment.
P.S. The table has been requested by the referee him/herself.
No further actions will follow regarding this comment.
