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 02 May 2008 at 17:41 GMT
Referee 1's Review:
**********
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.
**********
In my view, the research presented in this paper is well conducted and technically sound. It also represents a significant amount of sequencing work.
The main flaw I see is that the paper lacks a strong message, and at times feels purely descriptive. The authors would do well to think about what are the most significant findings of their research and the implications for lyssavirus evolution.
Linked to the above point, there are a few interesting leads in the paper that could be followed up. I have brought attention to some of these in the attached document.
Have the authors considered using coalescent techniques to date key nodes in the lyssavirus phylogeny? This would be straightforward to carry out and would add an extra dimension to the paper.
Finally, dN/dS values and G+C values lack confidence intervals. Please add these.
The attached document contains further specific comments.
To conclude, with minor revisions, I believe this paper is suitable for publication in PloS ONE.