Cytokines Studied in Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Response to Important Diseases
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this review, the responses of cytokines provoked by CyHV-3, SVCV, CEV and Aeromonas hydrophila infection in common carp is described and discussed in detail, respectively.It has certain reference value to the related research in this field, and the MS well organized and comprehensively described.However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before it is accepted for publication.
My special comments are as follow:
Authors should uniformly indent the first line distance of each paragraphs.；
- Line 35 , delete ‘group’
- Line 37, adeeper knowledge is the knowledge of cytokines, so authors should briefly introduce the concept and effect of cytokines at the end of this paragraph, paving the way for the subsequent introduction of cytokines
- Line 84, the primary effector cells of the innate immune system
- Line 85-86, The cytokines can be grouped into distinct families based on their structural characteristics
- Line 92 cascade
- Line 107,what the mean of “at a most simple level”, authors should explain it.
- Line 118-119 ‘which is primary expressed on the surface of T cells’, what does "which" mean;
- Line 119-122, rephrase this sentence
- Line 129, it should be ‘the missing function of TNF-β maybe performed by alternative proteins’
- Line 130 , what the mean of ‘type-II catfish’and ‘type-II trout’
- Line 147, what the mean of ‘considerable ceasing of macrophages-TNF-α’
- Line 187-188，’....serves as significant operator in the early containment.....’ should be rephrased
- Line 192 to 193, Authors should explain the relationship between type 1 IFN and CyHV-3, otherwise they cannot draw conclusions from subsequent in vitro experiments.
- Line 193, much more space
- Line 211, delete ‘very’
- Line 213, much more space
- Line222-223, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
- Line 258, much more space between ‘ the ‘and ‘family’
- Line 269-270, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
- Line 330, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
- Line311-312 Do you mean ‘the biological activity of group 1 and 11 IFN-γ....’
- Line 315 delete ‘collectively’
- Line 326 what the mean of ‘without infection’ in this sentence, in the absence of pathogen infection ?
- Line 540, Authors should adjust the format of references for garbled styles.
- Authors should standardize the letter spacing of references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Authors should uniformly indent the first line distance of each paragraphs.；
Thank you for the comment. The first line of distance of each paragraph is uniformly set now.
Point 1: Line 35 , delete ‘group’
Response 1: The suggested word is deleted now.
Point 2: Line 37, adeeper knowledge is the knowledge of cytokines, so authors should briefly introduce the concept and effect of cytokines at the end of this paragraph, paving the way for the subsequent introduction of cytokines
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The introduction is revised and edited now as suggested. However, some other editions have also been done in the introduction, which was suggested by another reviewer as well.
Point 3: Line 84, the primary effector cells of the innate immune system
Response 3: Thank you for the suggested correction. It has been written accordingly.
Point 4: Line 85-86, The cytokines can be grouped into distinct families based on their structural characteristics
Response 4: Thank you for the suggested correction. It has been written accordingly.
Point 5: Line 92 cascade
Response 5: The mentioned word is corrected now.
Point 6: Line 107,what the mean of “at a most simple level”, authors should explain it.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. The authors have explained it as suggested by the reviewer.
Point 7: Line 118-119 ‘which is primary expressed on the surface of T cells’, what does "which" mean;
Response 7: Thank you for the comment. There was a language mistake in the sentence, which is corrected now.
Point 8: Line 119-122, rephrase this sentence
Response 8: The suggested sentence is rephrased.
Point 9: Line 129, it should be ‘the missing function of TNF-β maybe performed by alternative proteins’
Response 9: Thank you for the suggested correction. It has been written accordingly.
Point 10: Line 130 , what the mean of ‘type-II catfish’and ‘type-II trout’
Response 10: Thank you for the comment. Both type-II catfish’and ‘type-II trout’ are introduced now.
Point 11: Line 147, what the mean of ‘considerable ceasing of macrophages-TNF-α’
Response 11: Thank you for the comment. The mentioned part is rephrased and written understandably.
Point 12: Line 187-188，’....serves as significant operator in the early containment.....’ should be rephrased
Response 12: The suggested part from reviewer is rephrased now.
Point 13: Line 192 to 193, Authors should explain the relationship between type 1 IFN and CyHV-3, otherwise they cannot draw conclusions from subsequent in vitro experiments.
Response 13: Thank you for the comment. The authors have explained in short the relationship between type 1 IFN and CyHV-3.
Point 14: Line 193, much more space
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. The space is removed now.
Point 15: Line 211, delete ‘very’
Response 15: The word ‘very’ is deleted.
Point 16: Line 213, much more space
Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. The space is removed now.
Point 17: Line222-223, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
Response 17: The sentence is rephrased now.
Point 18: Line 258, much more space between ‘ the ‘and ‘family’
Response 18: Thank you for pointing this out. The space is removed now.
Point 19: Line 269-270, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
Response 19: The sentence is rephrased now.
Point 20: Line 330, this sentence is confusing, need to rephrase
Response 20: The sentence is rephrased now.
Point 21: Line311-312 Do you mean ‘the biological activity of group 1 and 11 IFN-γ....’
Response 21: Thank you for the comment. The biological activity of groups 1 and 11 of IFNs are classified under type I interferons in fish. However, for better understanding, the sentence is edited now.
Point 22: Line 315 delete ‘collectively’
Response 22: The suggested word is deleted now.
Point 23: Line 326 what the mean of ‘without infection’ in this sentence, in the absence of pathogen infection ?
Response 23: We are sorry about the unclear meaning of the sentence. Yes, it means the absence of pathogen infection. However, for a better understanding, the sentence is rephrased now.
Point 24: Line 540, Authors should adjust the format of references for garbled styles.
Response 24: We have adjusted the references into the suggested style in the revised version.
Point 25: Authors should standardize the letter spacing of references.
Response 25: We have adjusted the letter spacing of references into the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction is too short and cannot reflect the importance and objectives of the present study. The authors should provide more information on the prevalence of various diseases in carp, their economic importance, and other related issues such as the status of the use of vaccines and chemical drugs to combat the diseases and challenges associated with them. Also, as the authors have mentioned in the abstract the reason for the study of some limited viral and bacterial diseases, in the introductory part, they should explain the importance of these diseases in more detail. Given the above, the authors can highlight the importance of their study in reviewing carp-related diseases and the role of the immune system including cytokines. They should also specify the objectives of the present study more accurately.
Line 125: After first appearing in the text, the Latin (scientific) names of the organisms should be abbreviated. Please, check and revise all of them throughout the text.
Line 127-129: Revise the sentences.
Line 157-168: This paragraph should be moved to the introduction and matched with other information provided in that section.
Line 196: Cyprinus carpio, must be written in italics and abbreviated form.
Line 298-301: Revise the sentence.
Line 318-321: Revise the sentence.
Line 506: The authors make no reference to Table 1 in the text of the article. In addition, it is best to add a column to the table and summarize the research results listed in the table.
Line 517-519: Revise the sentence.
Line 523-525: Revise the sentence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
This review aims to represent the knowledge about the cytokine responses to infectious diseases in common carp. The cytokine-based immunoreactivity raised by the specific bacterial pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila is also highlighted in this review. The review might be valuable to fish disease preventing and in favour of aquaculture. Therefore, I suggest that the manuscript might be considered to be accepted after the minor revisions by the authors.
Specific comments
1) Title: Cytokines studied in carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in response to important diseases: L. doesn't need italics.
2) Keywords: 5-6 key words are enough. Common carp or Cyprinus carpio can be deleted, they are same, only one can be listed here.
3) The authors should check the English grammar and improve the writing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Title: Cytokines studied in carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in response to important diseases: L. doesn't need italics.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. It is Corrected now.
Point 2: Keywords: 5-6 key words are enough. Common carp or Cyprinus carpio can be deleted, they are same, only one can be listed here.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Keywords are minimised to 6.
Point 3: The authors should check the English grammar and improve the writing.
Response 3: English language and grammatical errors have been improved in the revised version.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Lines 177-178: The sentence is confusing. Please revise it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2).
Point 1: Lines 177-178: The sentence is confusing. Please revise it.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. The suggested sentence is revised now.
