Abstract
Critique 1. Regarding the staining method in Figure 3.
Response: Please see the editor’s note.
Critique 2. Regarding the specificity of the clinical signs.
Response: Absolutely, clinical signs described were not specific for WNV and also could be seen in other infectious diseases with brain lesions. Consideration of the clinical signs for a pathologist are one of the diagnostic steps. In this article, diagnosis of WNV was confirmed by ISH and IHC together with histopathological changes.
Critique 3. Regarding the endothelia and periendothelial staining and the specificity of the staining.
Response: We repeated our test and had similar results. Figure 2 is clear and includes cytoplasmic granular labeling in neurons and glial cells, while the nonspecific neuropil staining represents background staining. In addition, a recent report on WNV from Turkey reported that IHC showed marked vascular localization of WNV antigen (“Perinatal West Nile Virus Infection in a Foal in Turkey,” Özkul et al, presented at the 9th annual meeting of Epizoone, 2015, p 242). Our result and this result indicate that vascular localization and the abundant presence of antigen could be associated with WNV circulating in Turkey.
Critique 4. Regarding the cross-reaction of the competitive ELISA kit with Japanese encephalitis viruses and the tick-borne encephalitis virus.
Response: Absolutely, the immunological methods with polyclonal antibody could show cross-reaction with Japanese encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis. However, the ISH methods with specific probes confirmed WNV in the foal of this article.
Editor's Note and Erratum
The legend of Figure 3 should read “Labelling of WNV RNA in endothelial cells. In situ hybridization method”. The editors regret this error, which was not the fault of the author.