Spectrum of respiratory viruses identified from SARS-CoV-2-negative human respiratory tract specimens in Watansoppeng, Indonesia

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Respiratory infections account for millions of hospital admissions worldwide. The aetiology of respiratory infections can be attributed to a diverse range of pathogens including viruses, bacteria and fungi. SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2)-negative specimens from Wattansoppeng city, South Sulawesi, were analysed to study the spectrum of respiratory viruses. Samples were screened for influenza virus, enterovirus, Paramyxoviridae, Nipah virus, Coronaviridae and Pneumoviridae. Of 210 specimens, 19 were positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-A, RSV-B, human parainfluenza virus type 1 (HPIV-1), HPIV-2, human rhinovirus (HRV)-A, HRV-B, HRV-C, human metapneumovirus (HMPV), influenza A virus (IAV) and coxsackievirus A6 (CV-A6). Influenza virus was of seasonal H3N2 subtype. The HMPVs were of genotypes B1 and A2a, while one RSV-A was of the ON-1 genotype. The viruses mostly affected children with unknown severity.

Article activity feed

  1. Comments to Author

    This paper reports a screen for various respiratory viruses in an Indonesian city where bats and humans cohabit. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the methods or results and this may be a useful addition to the many studies that do very similar things in places around the world. However, I feel that this paper is poorly presented in a number of ways: 1. Make it very clear (perhaps including in the title) that this is a study in humans 2. Introduce the many studies that do this kind of thing in other places around the world - the introduction is very short and simple as is. I feel that the link between the bats and humans here is circumstantial - i.e. that they cohabit. I think the direct link to bats should be toned down, unless: 1. Papers are cited that show that each of these viruses is in bats (preferably in Indonesia, but anywhere will do) 2. Bats in the area are also screened. Overall, this is a nice short report that might add a small amount of knowledge to the field by virtue of the fact that this has not been done in this area before. Methodologically, there is nothing new here and the link to bats is circumstantial.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially 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

  2. Comments to Author

    This paper is a study of what non-COVID respiratory viruses may be circulating in the population of individuals in Watansoppeng, a city in Eastern Indonesia. The study assayed 219 archived samples from previous respiratory cases, and the authors identified a virus or viruses in 19/219 cases. In these 19 cases they identified 10 different viruses. The question that is not answered in this study and was somewhat implied by the authors is that bats could be the reservoir for these viruses. Bats are a protected species in this city and two major species of fruit bats dwell. Because the bats are protected the authors were not able to sample the bats and determine if these bats are a reservoir for any of the 10 species of viruses identified in the study. So the title is a bit misleading as id the Discussion. No definite conclusion can be forwarded as to the role of the bats as reservoirs of these viruses in this city. Likely it is a high probability that bats could harbor some or all of these virus species but the lack of specimens for analysis from the bats weakens the paper. I think the authors need to treat this as a short communication to indicate the variety of circulating respiratory viruses in this city but deemphasize the role of the bats, this is really speculation on their part.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Good

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially 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