Comments on abstract, title, references

The aim of the paper is clear: Develop a rapid method to simultaneously and specifically detect Brucellae with 'smooth' lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The authors developed a highly specific mAb immunoassay capable of detecting Brucella species and other related pathogens of interest simultaneously, based on the Luminex xMAP platform. Straightaway, the authors note the significance of Brucella as a potential biological bioterrorism pathogen because of low-dose required for infection as well as the ability to aerosolize the pathogen for weaponization.

The title succinctly describes the 'what', 'how' and 'why' of the study: to develop a bead-based Luminex assay; using LPS specific monoclonal antibodies; to detect biological threats from Brucella species.

The references are relevant, recent, correctly referenced and appropriate key studies are included.

Comments on introduction/background

The Introduction/background clearly states what is known about the topics: Brucella, bioterrorism, gaps in the literature and how the assay can bridge that gap. The research question is clearly outlined and is justified given that there are no methods currently available to simultaneously detect multiple bioterrorism pathogenic agents.

Comments on methodology

The process of selecting mice for the study is very clear. All variables are defined and measured appropriately. The study methods are valid and reliable and there is enough detail in order to replicate the study.

Comments on data and results

The data is presented appropriately. The tables and figures are relevant and clearly presented with the exception of Figure 1. In my opinion, Figure 1B and 1C should be switched. Fig. 1C should describe the Western Blot while Fig. 1B should describing the staining. The units, rounding and number of decimals are appropriate; titles, columns and rows are labeled correctly and clearly; and categories are grouped appropriately. The text in the results add to the data and are not repetitive.

Statistically significant and practically meaningful results are clearly stated.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

The results are discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without over-interpretation. The conclusions answer the aims of the study and are supported by references and results. The limitations are not fatal and generally suggest opportunities for further research.

Response to Mentor feedback:

Feedback: "In summary, the "student's" review is certainly adequate but I think it came across as a little more agreeable than a typical peer-review. Also, most journals expect a reviewer to address questions like, 1) Where does this paper fit into the hierarchy of papers, top 10%, 25%, etc.; also, Is the grammar and language adequate?; Should a statistician review this paper?; and finally, what is the overall assessment- accept, reject, major revisions needed, etc. ? Based on the "student's" review, I am not sure how these questions would have been answered. It would have been nice for the "student" to have addressed these questions because these are the hard decisions the journal is asking you to make."

Response: My overall assessment is that the grammar and English language in the paper are adequate. I would recommend "Accept with minor revisions". My review was based on the Publons template which did not ask for assessments of hierarchy nor decision on publication. However, on the journal review submission sites, those questions would have been addressed. The statistics used by the authors is clear enough to explain the data and subsequent interpretation, thereby making it unnecessary to have the paper reviewed by a statistician.