Towards an Integrated Approach for Monitoring Toxoplasmosis in Southern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of article „Towards an integrated approach for monitoring toxoplasmosis in southern Italy” presented the results of the study on Toxoplasma gondii occurence in southern Italy.
The manuscript provided valuable information to the field of parasitology which can be also interesting for epidemiologist.
However, I have few issues, which should be considered/corrected:
1. M&M, 2.2. Task 1: Selection of livestock farms. The authors provide the final number of livestock farms. Can you give the number of each species (sheep, goats, cattle and water buffaloes)?
2. M&M, 2.2. Task 1: Copromicroscopic and serological analysis (cats). The authors dercribed very precisely how they get the samples from cats. The results from this examination are very shortly described (line 238). The authors should consider to increase this part or maybe shorten the description in the M&M.
3. M&M, 2.3 Task 2: Molecular analysis The authors should add citations according to which they used protocol for real-time PCR.
4. Results, table 4. Please consider/change the „SEROLOGY” for „ELISA test”
5. Lines 299 and 300. Please change the name of disease for lower case.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Concerning your manuscript INZ-2021-02-045 “Towards an integrated approach for monitoring toxoplasmosis in southern Italy”, I believe it is a very important issue regarding animal and public health, whatever the ecosystem whatever the ecosystem and region where the studies were carried out. And this type of research/results should have more visibility, both on regional, but also on worldwide basis, namely because it can have application for other areas in Italy facing similar problems or on a worldwide basis.
Besides what will be pointed out, namely that your manuscript has potential to be published, the final decision on the publication of your manuscript depends on the Editor final statement.
Regarding my reviews and comments, they are as follows:
Key-words – Page 1, line 41 – it is a pity that you did not add Italy. If possible, that would be great.
- Materials and Methods
Page 4, Lines 162-163 – the title of the subchapter 2.3 must not be written in bold, since the previous 2.1 and 2.2 are written in italic. Or you have to write all of them in bold.
Page 5, line 190 – Instead of “…by means stomacher…” write “…by means of a stomacher…”.
Page 5, Line 195 – What do you mean by “…10 l of TaqMan…?”.
Page 5, line 202 - The title of the subchapter 2.4 must not be written in bold, since the previous 2.1 and 2.2 are written in italic. Or you have to write all of them in bold.
Page 6, line 210. The title of the subchapter 2.5 must not be written in bold, since the previous 2.1 and 2.2 are written in italic. Or you have to write all of them in bold.
- Results
Page 9, Lines 292-294 - The sentence is not completely correct, according to data on table 5, because in cattle, seems the opposite, with a greater agreement between serum and diaphragm.
Page 10, 308-310 - Regarding the content of this subchapter, I think it would be more informative if you could be more precise regarding the number of events for each socio-professional group and an estimate of produced and distributed material like the one of the supplementary file.
- Discussion
Page 11, Lines 353-363 – Regarding this sentence, if we look at table 2, your results show a higher seroprevalence for young sheep and young cattle than for adults of both species. What is your explanation for this result, since you state the opposite in this paragraph?
- Conclusion
I think this chapter should not have references, since you should place here the conclusions of your own research. Therefore, I think you should rewrite it and this text, or part of it should be considered a chapter of future perspectives
Best regards and good luck with your amendments.
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
