rando2
commented
1 year ago Drafting a response:
We thank the reviewer for their kind words and helpful suggestions. We have made the following changes to the manuscript:
3) Line 239 - This reference is not available
This work in progress is currently hosted on the GitHub pages rendering of the broader COVID-19 Review Consortium project. However, we suspect many readers may encounter a lag when accessing the bookmarked link due to the large amount of material on this page. We are working on identifying a solution to this problem, but in the meantime, we will update the reference to refer to the COVID-19 Review Consortium project itself, which includes this manuscript.
4) Line 276 - Malaria is not a bacterial disease
Thank you for catching this error. This line has been corrected to identify malaria as a parasitic disease.
5) Line 683 - 2,686 represents 68% of the participants in the trial Thank you for catching this unclear sentence. It has been rephrased to state: Among these participants, 3,179 (80%) had received at least one dose of an mRNA vaccine, and of those, 2,686(84%) were fully vaccinated, corresponding to 68% of trial participants overall.
6) Line 266 and 287 - Which immune stimulant molecules? Which two vaccines?
Line 266 has been revised to state: "Plasmids can also be designed to act as adjuvants by encoding molecules such as cytokines that supplement the immune response [@doi:10.1358/dot.2018.54.5.2807864]." Line 287 erroneously identified the number of veterinary plasmid-vectored DNA vaccines. This line has been modified to read: Prior to COVID-19, however, plasmid-vectored DNA vaccines had been approved for commercial use only in veterinary populations [@doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-35761-6.00067-5; @doi:10.5772/intechopen.76754; @doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2021.06.008]. Between 2005 and 2006, several DNA vaccines were developed for non-human animal populations, including against viruses including a rhabdovirus in fish [@doi:10.3354/dao064013], porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus [@doi:10.2527/2006.843733x], and West Nile virus in horses [@doi:10.2460/javma.2005.226.240]. Within the past five years, additional plasmid-vectored vaccines for immunization against viruses were developed against a herpesvirus (in mice) [@doi:10.1089/vim.2020.0082] and an alphavirus (in fish) [@doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2018.07.012].
7) The reference list does not follow the format required by mSystems. In particular, volume and page # are missing.
The change has been made.
8) Figure 2 and 3 are of poor quality, with overlapping labels and hard to see shades of grey.
Thank you for pointing this out. The scale has been updated and the resolution increased, which should hopefully improve readability.
agitter
RLordan
Handled in #1179:
Handled in #1180:
Reviewer 1 (Comments for the Author):
The narrative review by Rando et al. is an account of the history of nucleic acid-based vaccines, with particular focus on Covid-19 vaccines their clinical trials, effectiveness and adverse events. An accompanying review article by the same group , which I did not review, deals with traditional vaccines for Covid-19 and it does not appear to overlap with, or be required for, the article under review This review is very comprehensive, informative and very well written. The literature consulted is extensive and relevant. Minor comments: 3) Line 239 - This reference is not available 4) Line 276 - Malaria is not a bacterial disease 5) Line 683 - 2,686 represents 68% of the participants in the trial 6) Line 266 and 287 - Which immune stimulant molecules? Which two vaccines? 7) The reference list does not follow the format required by mSystems. In particular, volume and page # are missing. 8) Figure 2 and 3 are of poor quality, with overlapping labels and hard to see shades of grey.