A Systematic Review on Suitability of Molecular Techniques for Diagnosis and Research into Infectious Diseases of Concern in Resource-Limited Settings
, Selasie Ahiatrogah 2,†, Anna A. Kafintu-Kwashie 3, Gloria Amegatcher 1, Diana Prah 4, Akua K. Botwe 5, Mildred A. Adusei-Poku 3, Evangeline Obodai 6 and Nicholas I. Nii-Trebi 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
Generally, the manuscript is well written however there are few major and minor issues to consider
Major
The discussion was too simplified, subheadings should be provided and issues addressed in details. Example, Impact of improved molecular techniques on infectious diseases diagnosis, Molecular diagnosis and cross reactivity etc are examples of such subheadings..
Although the list is not exhaustive, it is still strange to talk about infectious disease in resource limited settings without the mention of malaria.
For both tables, a column could be added to address the challenges stated.
Minor
1. Line 51: Add “disease” to tropical infectious…
2. Line 60: Europe is not a country
3. Line 72: Add “comma” between real time PCR and chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis (ChIP)
4. Table 1: Under challenges of serological method for the identification of yaws, add “to” Methods unable distinguish……..
5. Table 1: Under Microscopy for Buruli ulcer, separate “orbiopsy”……
6. Table 1: Under Ebola, check the “Antibody detection” section and make the necessary correction
7. In most cases, authors failed to italize scientific names
8. Sentence from 133 to 134 could be removed away
9. Line 243: the bracket opened was not closed
10. Line 459-460: The sentence is confusing
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting and presents the topic in an exhaustive way. This type of review is very necessary because they systematize knowledge in the area of a specific issue. In my opinion, the publication is prepared carefully. The text requires minor editorial corrections, for example the removal of repetitions (eg in line 177 the word "pallidum" was duplicated). Figure 1 is positioned in such a way that the text above is incomplete (lines 138-139). In my opinion, the article may be published with minor editorial corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The review by Akua K. Yalley et al. is an important compilation work that retraces the history of the detection and diagnostic methods of five tropical diseases, and the current place of molecular methods. The methodology follows a guideline which is well described and the numerous references seem relevant and up to date. The advantages and disadvantages of historical and current techniques are presented in a synthetic way. Authors emphasis in particular the benefits of LAMP and other isothermal amplification methods, while referring to certain commercially-available IVD products or other approaches used in the context of research. Current challenges such as turnaround time, automation or resource settings are discussed. I think this review will be of interest for readers of Current Issues in Molecular Biology.
I have only a few remarks to help improve the manuscript:
- The choice of the diseases presented in this review is argued, but several other major pathogens exist and are not addressed. HIV, for example, is only poorly mentioned. Is it because the subject is already well documented with too many references? Perhaps the authors can add a comment on some of the pathogens that are not discussed in their paper.
- The use of benchtop MinION sequencers is presented in the context of the 2014/2015 West African Ebola outbreaks. Do the authors think portable sequencing would be an appropriate solution for other diseases or future outbreaks. Do you have some other examples of MinION use? It would be interesting to comment on that perspective.
- Table 1 would benefit of a horizontal full-page layout for better reading.
- Figure 1 is inserted in the middle of a sentence and should be repositioned.
- Table 2: please mention Oxford nanopore sequencing in a more explicit way.
- Several extra-spaces (eg: lines 27, 94, 135, 136, 137, 138, 169, 195, 204, 208 etc) and minor typos (unnecessarily underlined text at lines 259-260) are detectable. Although English is globally fine, double-check by a native speaker could also be a plus.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a well written and informative review of needs, capabilities, and status of molecular tests for resource-limited settings. The conclusion is that isothermal methods of amplification are sufficiently developed for POC uses.
The literature cited is adequate. Tables 1 and 2 are good summaries in useful form.
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's commendations. There are no serious issues to address, apart from minor editorial corrections recommended, all of which have been addressed.
