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 1
Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 08 Feb 2008 at 22:27 GMT
Referee 1's review:
I think the changes made have improved the manuscript, and I accept the authors reasons for leaving parts of the manuscript unchanged where they disagreed with my suggestions.
There is, however, one exception. The abstract states that "We compared saline and Alhydrogel (aluminum hydroxide)-adjuvanted vaccine formulations at three ICC-1132 dose levels...".
This implies that both the saline and alhydrogel adjuvant vaccinations were given at each dose level. If I read the paper correctly, the vaccine was unstable in saline and so this was only given at the lower dose. This isn't the impression one would get reading the abstract, and I think this should be corrected. I would suggest that the instability of the vaccine in saline is so important it should at least be mentioned in the abstract, and that would clarify this impression.
***********
N.B. These are the comments made by the referee when reviewing an earlier version of this paper. Prior to publication the manuscript has been revised in light of these comments and to address other editorial requirements.