Insight into the seroepidemiology and dynamics of circulating serotypes of dengue virus over a 4 year period in western Uttar Pradesh, India
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
An important public health problem in India is dengue infection, with every year seeing an increase in cases of dengue fever. Dengue affects all individuals irrespective of their gender and age, although the infection rate is higher among males and younger people. Despite low severity in general, dengue virus can cause severe health conditions in some individuals. Genetic characterization of circulating endemic dengue virus (DENV) serotypes plays a significant role in providing epidemiological knowledge and subsequent vaccine development. In the present study, over a 4 year period, we assessed DENV transmission dynamics in major regions of western Uttar Pradesh in North India. ELISA tests were used to diagnose dengue, and PCRs were used to determine the circulating serotype. We found that dengue infection peaks after the rainy season and affects all sexes and ages. A total of 1277 individuals were found positive for dengue; among them, 61.7 % were male and 38.3 % were female. DEN-1 was found in 23.12 %, DEN-2 in 45 %, DEN-3 in 29.06 % and DEN-4 in 1.5 % of the dengue-infected individuals. All four DENV serotypes were circulating in the study area, and DENV serotype-2 (DEN-2) was the most prevalent serotype.
Article activity feed
-
-
I am pleased to tell you that your article has now been accepted for publication in Access Microbiology. The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. The manuscript is well written and contributes to the literature. Thank you for addressing all reviewers comments satisfactorily and in a timely manner.
-
-
On review of the revised manuscript, there are further changes that need to be addressed before considering this manuscript for publication. 1. Reviewer 1 included that there was substantial scope in improving the writing in the manuscript; however, you need to be more explicit in your response as to how you've addressed this comment as it is not evident what has been done when looking at the manuscript. 2. The discussion currently states the results from this manuscript and then includes other manuscripts with similar findings, this is limited. Instead, the discussion should be improved by discussing the relevance of the results and what they will be used for in the future e.g. can any specific recommendations be made as a result of this work or does more and/or ongoing monitoring of prevalent serotypes need to be done. The inclusion …
On review of the revised manuscript, there are further changes that need to be addressed before considering this manuscript for publication. 1. Reviewer 1 included that there was substantial scope in improving the writing in the manuscript; however, you need to be more explicit in your response as to how you've addressed this comment as it is not evident what has been done when looking at the manuscript. 2. The discussion currently states the results from this manuscript and then includes other manuscripts with similar findings, this is limited. Instead, the discussion should be improved by discussing the relevance of the results and what they will be used for in the future e.g. can any specific recommendations be made as a result of this work or does more and/or ongoing monitoring of prevalent serotypes need to be done. The inclusion of other studies that have differing results and discussion around reasons for this would also improve the manuscript. 3. One limitation was included at the end of the discussion, are there other limitations to the study? Does this lead to future work that could be done and if so, what would these studies be? 4. Reviewer 1 also commented on the referencing in the discussion needs improvement. However, this has not been addressed, apart from removing the italics on the authors name. It is not necessary to include both the authors of the manuscript and the Vancouver referring e.g. Smith et al and [4]. When referring to multiple studies in the text it may be cleaner and also help with the flow in the discussion to remove the authors names and just use the Vancouver referencing. Therefore, the referencing needs to be looked at further.
-
-
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of Access Microbiology. However, based on the comments received, it is clear that a major revision of this manuscript, in particular the results and discussion section, will be required before a decision can be made on its publication. It has also been highlighted that the manuscript title is not appropriate and this will need to be changed. I will be pleased to consider a revised manuscript along with a document including a point by point response to each of the reviewers comments. Your revised manuscript may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers, along with your itemised response to the reviewers’ comments.
-
Comments to Author
[Delete this text before submitting your review. Please include comments to the author here, and include the below sections, where possible. All comments here will be posted publicly online alongside the article once the Editor has made a decision.] 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data: Satisfactory 2. Presentation of results: Satisfactory 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings: Good 4. Literature analysis or discussion: Good 5. Any other relevant comments This is an interesting study and the authors have collected represented a good outcome. The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards to text, and results. Key critical points are a) …
Comments to Author
[Delete this text before submitting your review. Please include comments to the author here, and include the below sections, where possible. All comments here will be posted publicly online alongside the article once the Editor has made a decision.] 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data: Satisfactory 2. Presentation of results: Satisfactory 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings: Good 4. Literature analysis or discussion: Good 5. Any other relevant comments This is an interesting study and the authors have collected represented a good outcome. The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards to text, and results. Key critical points are a) In the abstract section, the line no. 35/36 and 46 to 48 are almost same it may be clubbed. b) In Result section the outcome/mortality of dengue infected is not recorded and discussed. c) The patients having dual infection of dengue virus have observed the DHF or not may be discussed.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Molecular Epidemiology and Dynamics of Serotypes of Dengue virus isolated from seasonal outbreaks of Dengue Fever over a four-year period from Western Uttar Pradesh, India. The study performed on blood collected from 7256 suspected dengue cases reported during the four-year span (2017 - 2021) from seven districts of Western Utter Pradesh, India. Dengue NS1 antigen detection and anti-Dengue IgM antibodies detection by ELISA used for primary diagnosis and the NS1 antigen positive blood samples further processed for well-established serotyping RT-PCR. Furthermore, the resultant data was analyzed to determine annual distribution of serotype prevalence, distribution of gender, age group and annual seasonality. Specific comments: 1. This study simply identified Dengue serotype distribution by RT-PCR assay …
Comments to Author
Molecular Epidemiology and Dynamics of Serotypes of Dengue virus isolated from seasonal outbreaks of Dengue Fever over a four-year period from Western Uttar Pradesh, India. The study performed on blood collected from 7256 suspected dengue cases reported during the four-year span (2017 - 2021) from seven districts of Western Utter Pradesh, India. Dengue NS1 antigen detection and anti-Dengue IgM antibodies detection by ELISA used for primary diagnosis and the NS1 antigen positive blood samples further processed for well-established serotyping RT-PCR. Furthermore, the resultant data was analyzed to determine annual distribution of serotype prevalence, distribution of gender, age group and annual seasonality. Specific comments: 1. This study simply identified Dengue serotype distribution by RT-PCR assay widely used for rapid detection and typing of DENV through use of consensus primers annealing all four serotypes. 2. This study is based on use of human blood samples from suspected cases. Authors must mention about approvals from different regulatory committees including the human ethical committee. 3. Title of the article mentions 'molecular epidemiology'. However, outcome of this study is not adding any additional knowledge on any of the genetic changes (mutations), or altered pathways that influence the disease risk factors or pathogenesis. Title of the article mentions 'Dengue virus isolated from seasonal outbreaks'. However, the methods and outcome does not indicate any attempts of virus isolation. In place, the study is entirely based on blood samples collected from suspected cases. Accordingly, the title needs change. 4. There is substantial scope in improving the script writing. 5. Reference writing in discussion needs improvement (lines: 225, 236, 243, 249, 255, 257, 270). 6. Table 2 and Figure 1 represents the gender affected during different years of the study. Same data analysis showed in two different formats, needs to avoid repetition. 7. Table 3 and Figure 2 represents the distribution of age group affected during different years of the study. Same data analysis showed in two different formats, needs to avoid repetition.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: There is no mention of human ethical approval of this study
-