Next Article in Journal
Phage Therapy in Germany—Update 2023
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of Oral Antivirals Ritonavir-Nirmatrelvir and Molnupiravir in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Is Associated with Low Rates of Severe COVID-19: A Single-Center, Prospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Bioinformatic Tools for NGS-Based Metagenomics to Improve the Clinical Diagnosis of Emerging, Re-Emerging and New Viruses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Neutralizing Antibody Response: Lessons to Be Learned from HIV and Respiratory Syncytial Virus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Viruses
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/v15020586
Review Report
viruses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....
share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Novel Mathematical Model That Predicts the Protection Time of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

Viruses 2023, 15(2), 586; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15020586
by Zhaobin Xu 1,*, Dongqing Wei 2, Hongmei Zhang 1 and Jacques Demongeot 3,*
Reviewer 1:
Anton Pavlovych Gerilovych
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Md Rabiul Islam
Viruses 2023, 15(2), 586; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15020586
Submission received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue RNA Viruses and Antibody Response)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract is unclear and non-concrete.

No evidence of the practical application.

Pure graphical materials signs and explanations.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Major concerns.

1. Is the model fit for all ages?
In children, susceptible cells may be lower than in adults due to body mass and the presence of ACE receptors. Moreover, the immunity in children is stronger than in adults and the elderly when using the same dose of vaccine.
In contrast to elderly that low immunity than other age groups.

If it was possible. Suggest discussing the age-associated immunogenicity and suitable age range for your model to make it more clear. 

 

2. What is the effect of sex?
In females, the immunity seems higher than in males.

Was the forecast trend with 95% CI coverage for both males and females?

 

3. What is the effect of different types of vaccines (inactivated, viral vector, or mRNA) on the forecast trend?

Different types could give different B- and T- cells profiles. Are the coverage of the parameter to all types of vaccines?

 

 

4. What is the effect of vaccine dose(s) on the antibodies profiles (trend, kinetics, and protection)?

Is the model answer the effect of dose, including booster dose and "anamnestic response"?

 

Minor concerns.

1. Line 30-31, please specify the specification date of summarised total confirmed cases and lethal because the total number of COVID-19 cases will increase daily.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article entitled “A Novel Mathematical Model that Predicts the Protection Time of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies” is a good one to contribute to the literature. I have read the full article with great interest. I would like to thank the authors and their collaborators for the time and effort involved in this work. This is an interesting article focusing on the mathematical model for protection time of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.  In my opinion, this is a straightforward report including references to the recent literature with regard to the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 and the antibody protection time. Moreover, this work presents sound implication for health policies and future research. I recommend its publication.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your comments!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract is still looks unclear.

Source of data explained unclear (the virological part has to be clear described - patients, numbers, Ab levels, methods and sites of lab testing)

Units of measurement in the graphical  presentation are non-concrete

Back to TopTop