The paper is well written, well conducted and up to the standard expected from virology section in Surrey University. 1. The title says what the paper about and the aims are clear. 2.The authors presented the introduction in a good manner despite lack of similar studies using different viruses. 3. Due to the huge amount of work in this paper, the authors reduced details of some methods. 4. The results were presented in a proper way. There are many figures which some of them are not necessary like Fig 1a; Fig 7 and Fig 8a. Also the figures and Tables were not in their right places probably due to large sizes of these figures and Tables. 5. The results were discussed from different angles and interpreted properly. 6. Unfortunately there was no conclusion. 7. References is a little bit old as 4 references out of 41 within the last 3 years.
8.overall, the study design was appropriate and answer the aims.the new things in this paper which added to knowledge is the variations in the same viral particles in the sense of infection and spread