Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeReferee Comments: Referee 2 (AR Fooks)
Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 02 Jul 2007 at 12:40 GMT
Reviewer 2's Review (AR Fooks)
“The manuscript by Amengual et al entitled 'Wave-like temporal spreading of lyssavirus and survival of bats in natural colonies' describes an epidemiological study showing the prevalence of EBLV-1 in Myotis myotis (insectivorous) bats. A temporal dynamics model was used to show the likely mortality rate in the bat colonies infected with EBLV-1. The bats were studied from two colonies in the Balearic Islands in Spain. The authors' principal observation was that cyclic lyssavirus infections occurred with periodic changes in the number of susceptible, immune (protected) and infected bats. A second observation was that during the 12-year observation period, the persistence of immunity (antibodies) lasted for more than 1-year in some individuals with oscillations of antibody levels over time. The authors' claims that this report is the first report on the dynamics of lyssavirus in a bat colony. Their observations support the notion for a 'mild' or 'silent' infection followed by survival. These data have implications for public health policy throughout Europe, especially as the risk of rabies in bats cannot be accurately determined on the basis of abnormal behaviour alone, especially if a small proportion of infected bats are asymptomatic when infected. The data reported here is highly controversial, which requires scrutiny from many experts before acceptance for publication.”
N.B. These are the general comments made by the reviewer when reviewing this paper in light of which the manuscript was revised. Specific points addressed during revision of the paper are not shown.