Learn the Past and Present to Teach the Future—Role of Active Surveillance of Exposure to Endemic and Emerging Viruses in the Approach of European Bison Health Protection
, Jarosław Tomana 2, Wojciech Socha 1, Jerzy Rola 1, Piotr Kubiś 3, Wanda Olech 4 and Michał K. Krzysiak 5,6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study evaluated the prevalence and identified risk factors for viral infections affecting reproduction (BVDV, BoHV-1, BoHV-4), respiratory tract (BRV3, BAdV-3, BRSV) and vector-borne (BTV, SBV). Over 600 serum samples were used for AB testing. Also, 270 lung tissue and 284 nasal swabs were used in virological tests collected from 24 free-living and captive European bison populations between 2016 and 2023.
I believe the study is well-written, and the information is original and significant to the field.
I just think that the conclusion "vector-borne bluetongue virus (BTV) is no longer circulating in the environment" is not fully supported, considering the limited number of animals/sentinels tested.
Author Response
I believe the study is well-written, and the information is original and significant to the field.
I just think that the conclusion "vector-borne bluetongue virus (BTV) is no longer circulating in the environment" is not fully supported, considering the limited number of animals/sentinels tested.
Response: This conclusion is supported by BTV national monitoring data (not published), which is supervised by our institute, which is the national reference laboratory (The program described here: https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/wprowadzenie-programu-wykrywania-wystepowania-zakazen-wirusem-choroby-18956457 , sorry it is in Polish). Over 6000 domestic rumianants are serosurveyed each year for the presence of BTV antibodies. Since 2014, no BTV circulation in cattle, sheep or goats was detected.
We believed that getting such a large sample size was an achievement (in comparison to many studies which consider endangered species). The effort to get the samples of every single European bison available was great and required the involvement of many people. On what basis does the reviewer consider that the number of animals included in the study was limited?
We have added this sentence to discussion: “Since then, BTV infections in domestic ruminants surveyed according to BTV national monitoring program were more and more sporadic and no new infections have been identified in the last few years (unpublished data), thus confirming the situation observed in European bison in this study.”
and correcting the conclusion into: “vector-borne bluetongue virus (BTV) is probably no longer circulating in the environment”
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, the authors deal with the role of active surveillance of exposure to endemic and emerging viruses in European bison in Poland.
The manuscript is complex and well written, but there are still some points to be addressed by the authors in order to improve their manuscript.
(1.) Materials and Methods: I recommend authors to verify data included in table S2.
(2) Results: The results have to be presented in more structured way in order be better valorized.
(3) Discussion:
- The comments related to viruses affecting reproduction should address the serological results considering that no viral detection research was undertaken in order to prove active circulation of those pathogens.
- I recommend authors to revise discussion related to SBV circulation theory in European bison in Poland.
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
In this article, the authors deal with the role of active surveillance of exposure to endemic and emerging viruses in European bison in Poland.
The manuscript is complex and well written, but there are still some points to be addressed by the authors in order to improve their manuscript.
- Materials and Methods: I recommend authors to verify data included in table S2.
Response: We have verified and corrected Table S1.
(2) Results: The results have to be presented in more structured way in order be better valorized.
Response: More structured? How? It is structured by subsections and the results are presented step by step in order to verify the hypothesis. Perhaps, the Reviewer would be more precise?
(3) Discussion:
- The comments related to viruses affecting reproduction should address the serological results considering that no viral detection research was undertaken in order to prove active circulation of those pathogens.
Response: Since the seroprevalences are so low, virological investigation is pointless. However, we performed some molecular and antigenic methods in order to detect pestivirus and alphaherpesviruses, however all the results (as suspected) were negative. Therefore, we thought giving irrelevant, negative results would complicate even more the presentation. As to BoHV-4, as discussed, the exposure to the virus was demonstrated for the first time in European bison. It is a good start for further studies including virus molecular and pathological characterization.
- I recommend authors to revise discussion related to SBV circulation theory in European bison in Poland.
Response: It was revised, however, since we are in charge of SBV national monitoring program (which includes over 3000 domestic ruminants annually), we have arguments to sustain the conclusions on the epidemiological situation in Poland.
Reviewer 3 Report
Particularly concerning grammar the manuscript needs native-speaker editing.
Line 49: 5% per year
Caption of figure 1: Reference has to be formatted
Figure 1: Better: "Passive veterinary supervision and epizootiological..."
"Monitoring" not "Surveillance of the infectious threats..."
Line 86: Reference has to be formatted.
Line 108: Vena jugularis
Line 114: "Minimum sample size" rather than "minimum representative number"
Line 160: Better: "univariable associations"
Line 177: Remove bracket after km2
Check table 1 - Origin: p-value of BoHV-1 is not in correct column
Line 212: Better "positive test results" than exposure
Line 214: Maybe move to discussion...
Line 216: I do not understand the scale in brackets - rephrase!
Table 2: Row Origin - p-value split over two rows, dito: age group, sanitary status
Line 233: "were obtained" not "obtained"
Line 236: "European bison" not "European"
Line 248: "as compared to" not "in respect to"
Lines 249ff: Rather belongs to discussion
Lines 270ff: Rather belongs to discussion, no information provided on prevalence among cattle
Line 308: "through" not "trough"
Table 5: CI95% missing for age groups of BRV3 and BAdV-3
Line 346: omit "modeling"
Line 352: I know what you mean, but: I guess it is better to call it expansion not shrinkage of the interface, contact probability goes up!
Line 375: "in" not "is" neighboring...
Line 402: BoHV-4?
Line 422: "..the risk of infection in European Bison increased with age", really? The probability of an animal to test sero-positiv increases...
Line 430: I don't like the term "model" - you tested for asspociations...
Generally: You provide information on the quality traits of the commercial tests in the supplements - you could mention that determined seroprevalences are apparent prevalences only...
Author Response
Reviewer 3.
Particularly concerning grammar the manuscript needs native-speaker editing.
Response: It was corrected carefully
Line 49: 5% per year
Response: corrected.
Caption of figure 1: Reference has to be formatted
Response: corrected.
Figure 1: Better: "Passive veterinary supervision and epizootiological..."
"Monitoring" not "Surveillance of the infectious threats..."
Response: corrected.
Line 86: Reference has to be formatted.
Response: corrected.
Line 108: Vena jugularis
Response: corrected.
Line 114: "Minimum sample size" rather than "minimum representative number"
Response: corrected.
Line 160: Better: "univariable associations"
Response: corrected.
Line 177: Remove bracket after km2
Response: corrected.
Check table 1 - Origin: p-value of BoHV-1 is not in correct column
Response: corrected.
Line 212: Better "positive test results" than exposure
Response: corrected.
Line 214: Maybe move to discussion...
Response: As suggested by the journal the results include some interpretation as well, therefore we will keep it as it is.
Line 216: I do not understand the scale in brackets - rephrase!
Response: It was deleted. The explanation is included in the Table S4.
Table 2: Row Origin - p-value split over two rows, dito: age group, sanitary status
Response: corrected.
Line 233: "were obtained" not "obtained"
Response: corrected.
Line 236: "European bison" not "European"
Response: corrected.
Line 248: "as compared to" not "in respect to"
Response: corrected.
Lines 249ff: Rather belongs to discussion
Response: Again, as suggested by the journal the results include some interpretation as well, therefore we will keep this comment.
Lines 270ff: Rather belongs to discussion, no information provided on prevalence among cattle
Response: Similarly to the point raised above, we used the results to verify the hypothesis. Therefore, it is analysis of results and interpretation, not discussion.
Line 308: "through" not "trough"
Response: corrected.
Table 5: CI95% missing for age groups of BRV3 and BAdV-3
Response: corrected.
Line 346: omit "modeling"
Response: corrected.
Line 352: I know what you mean, but: I guess it is better to call it expansion not shrinkage of the interface, contact probability goes up!
Response: corrected.
Line 375: "in" not "is" neighboring...
Response: corrected.
Line 402: BoHV-4?
Response: corrected.
Line 422: "..the risk of infection in European Bison increased with age", really? The probability of an animal to test sero-positiv increases...
Response: corrected.
Line 430: I don't like the term "model" - you tested for asspociations...
Response: corrected
Generally: You provide information on the quality traits of the commercial tests in the supplements - you could mention that determined seroprevalences are apparent prevalences only...
Response: we have added this remark, thank you.
