Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explains the objective by first giving background on FPV biology, transmission, environmental stability, clinical impact, and the importance of monitoring viral genome changes. It then identifies the specific knowledge gap: limited/no molecular surveillance of FPV in the highly populated Downstate New York region. Finally, it clearly states that the study aims to conduct molecular and serological surveillance of FPV in feral and shelter cats and to molecularly characterize full-length FPV genomes circulating in the local feline population.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Somewhat appropriate — The methods are appropriate for the study aims, but several areas need more detail or strengthening, especially qPCR validation, NGS quality metrics, sequencing of additional isolates, and cautious interpretation of spatial clustering.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusions are generally supported by the qPCR, IFA, virus isolation, NGS, and phylogenetic data. However, some evolutionary and functional interpretations should be stated more cautiously because they are based mainly on sequence analysis of one isolate and are not yet supported by broader sequencing or functional experiments.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The visualizations are generally well-suited because they show the major result types clearly: qPCR Ct distribution and categories, duplicate qPCR concordance, spatial distribution/IDW interpolation, IFA positivity and PCR/IFA agreement, FPV genome organization, phylogenetic trees, VP2 mutation/3D structure, CPE in MDCK cells, and IFA staining images. These figures support the main findings and help readers understand the molecular, serological, spatial, and genomic results. I would not select “Highly appropriate and clear” because some figures could be improved. The phylogenetic trees may be difficult to read with many sequences, the spatial IDW maps need clearer sampling-density context, and the NGS/mutation figures would be stronger with more coverage metrics, zoomed insets, and clearer labeling.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The authors provide a clear and useful discussion of the qPCR, IFA, spatial, viral isolation, and phylogenetic findings, and they appropriately recommend continued surveillance. However, some interpretations about VP2 mutations, virulence, vaccine effectiveness, and evolutionary divergence should be stated more cautiously because they are mainly based on sequence analysis of one isolate and lack functional validation.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

The preprint contributes noteworthy regional surveillance and genomic characterization data for FPV, especially in a high-density shelter/rescue cat population where molecular surveillance appears limited. However, its broader impact is limited by sequencing only one isolate and by the need for additional validation, broader sampling, and functional studies of the identified VP2 mutations.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The manuscript would benefit from language editing because some grammatical errors, inconsistent terminology, and unclear phrasing make parts of the methods, results, and discussion harder to follow. A careful language edit would improve readability and make the scientific interpretation clearer.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The preprint provides useful FPV surveillance and genomic characterization data, but several methodological and interpretation issues should be strengthened before publication, including clearer sample accounting, stronger qPCR/NGS validation details, more cautious evolutionary claims, and language editing.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

The study addresses an important regional FPV surveillance question and includes useful qPCR, IFA, virus isolation, NGS, phylogenetic, and spatial data. However, the manuscript needs major revision to clarify sample accounting, strengthen qPCR and NGS validation details, provide more cautious interpretation of VP2 mutation significance, and improve language clarity before it is ready for broader editorial or publisher-level consideration.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.