Next Article in Journal
Model-Based Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Hospitalization and Outcome in Germany, the Federal States and Districts
Next Article in Special Issue
Proteome Analysis of Swine Macrophages after Infection with Two Genotype II African Swine Fever Isolates of Different Pathogenicity
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Characterization of Recombinase-Based Isothermal Amplification Assays (RPA/RAA) for the Rapid Detection of Monkeypox Virus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Coxsackievirus Protease 2A Targets Host Protease ATG4A to Impair Autophagy
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Promiscuous Inflammasomes: The False Dichotomy of RNA/DNA Virus-Induced Inflammasome Activation and Pyroptosis

Viruses 2022, 14(10), 2113; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14102113
by Hannah L. Wallace and Rodney S. Russell *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Viruses 2022, 14(10), 2113; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14102113
Submission received: 30 August 2022 / Revised: 16 September 2022 / Accepted: 18 September 2022 / Published: 23 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Omics of Virus-Host Interactions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our manuscript. We realize we have few figures in this review, and we also felt we could have had more, but although lengthy, this review is very focused on its theme, which we felt represented a gap in the literature. Rather than add another generic pathogenesis or interferon pathway figure, we respectfully prefer to keep the review focused as it is. The original submission already included a comprehensive table summarizing the data.

Reviewer 2 Report

Here, Wallace et al have precisely and concisely summarized the difference between DNA and RNA viruses activating the inflammasome pathway.

The review has mentioned all the DNA and RNA viruses studied till date which can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome or multiple inflammasome for the release of cytokines.

The review urges to the field for conclusive research and the fact that vaccine development puts on time constrain on the basic research.

The review has cited all the important publications and the structure of the review also fits for the overall understanding.

Overall, the authors need to double check the language in few parts but other than this the review adds to the current understanding of the field.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their timely and extensive consideration of our manuscript. We were encouraged that the reviewer felt this was a timely and useful review. We have double checked the language, as requested by the reviewer.

Back to TopTop