Next Article in Journal
Vaccines to Prevent Meningitis: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterisation of Phage Susceptibility Variation in Salmonellaenterica Serovar Typhimurium DT104 and DT104b
Previous Article in Journal
Ocean Acidification Induces Changes in Virus–Host Relationships in Mediterranean Benthic Ecosystems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Natural Antimicrobials Suitable for Combating Desiccation-Resistant Salmonella enterica in Milk Powder
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

CD4+ and CD8+ Circulating Memory T Cells Are Crucial in the Protection Induced by Vaccination with Salmonella Typhi Porins

Microorganisms 2021, 9(4), 770; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040770
by Luis Ontiveros-Padilla 1,2, Alberto García-Lozano 1, Araceli Tepale-Segura 1,3, Tania Rivera-Hernández 1,4, Rodolfo Pastelin-Palacios 2, Armando Isibasi 1, Lourdes A. Arriaga-Pizano 1, Laura C. Bonifaz 1,* and Constantino López-Macías 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Microorganisms 2021, 9(4), 770; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040770
Submission received: 9 March 2021 / Revised: 23 March 2021 / Accepted: 29 March 2021 / Published: 7 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Salmonella and Salmonellosis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done and straightforward. A solid follow-up on previous studies from the same group. No major comments.

Author Response

We thank and appreciate the reviewer’s comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The methodology of the experiment is adequately described, but it would be better to present it by visual means.
The figures are too many and respectively very small, which makes them very difficult to read. I recommend reducing their number and bringing them out as additional material to the publication.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer’s comments. As suggested by the reviewer, we added an schematic view of the experimental strategy in figures 1 and 4. In addition we reduced the number of panels in figures 1, 2 and 3, the removed panels are now as supplementary information as figures A1, A2 and A3.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an excellent work that is clearly explained, and the conclusions are supported by the data.

My only comment was that I found the materials and methods section to be extensively repeated in the results section.  I am not sure how this fits with the Journal’s style but it would not be acceptable in the other journals for which I review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We kindly thank the reviewer’s comment. As per the reviewer’s suggestion, he have reviewed the results section and eliminated all information that was already described in the materials and methods section.

Back to TopTop