The present work is very interesting and the results shown are highly relevant for the community of researchers working on parasite vaccines. However, I recommend the authors to transform the manuscript into a Brief Definitive Report, since mechanistic and/or immunological evidence is still lacking for a Parasite Immunology paper. Otherwise, I suggest the authors to obtain and include more results supporting the role of immunity in the protection they report. Additionally, I have several comments and/or suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript:

• Line 105: Please, if no genetic evidence is available on parasite genotype/species, refer to E. granulosus sensu lato over de whole document.

• Line 138: What is HHF?

• Parasite: the whole work was performed with a unique parasite batch? Were they pooled? Any information regarding genotype/species?

• Line 140: How long were protoscoleces maintained in culture? Which parasite/medium volume ratio was used? Any medium replacement?

• Lines 145-146: How did you chose radiation doses? Which parasite/medium volume ratio was used? Exposure time? Viability checking?

• Lines 170-173: The number of mice is very small in each group. Did you consider repeating the experiment with a larger n?

• Lines 181-184: Since the groups are not large enough for a parametric evaluation, I suggest using a non-parametric test (like Mann-Whitney) for assessing differences between mice groups. Cytokines are mentioned but no results are shown. Moreover, no data on parasite viability is shown, which I strongly recommend to include in the manuscript when necessary.

• Lines 185-189: Parasite were obtained from human specimens, please include the ethics statement regarding patients (informed consent, etc).

• Line 196: No heart results are shown.

• Lines 240-248: From my point of view, the number of mice in each group is very small for an infection model known to exhibit large variations between individuals. However, I am aware of the time consuming experiments involved. Thus, I strongly suggest the authors to describe in more detail the results obtained in this experiment. A table similar to Table 1 would be highly appreciated.

• Lines 262-265: I strongly recommend the author to include data regarding parasite viability, since it is a crucial point for the discussion. The same for line 279.

• Final comments:

o Please, comment on potential protection due to “concomitant immunity” induced by several parasite doses scattered over time prior to challenge. A control group of mice immunized with dead but unbroken protoscoleces prior to challenge would let you discriminate between “immunization” vs “concomitant immunity”.

o Please, comment on the dose of irradiated protoscoleces used. More parasite would be better?

o Please, clarify the possibility of having used parasites from different genotypes/species along the whole work.

Responses are accepted and acknowledged. Accordingly, the manuscript was satisfactory improved respect to its original version.

I still have some concerns relating to statistical analyses. Please, adapt the stat tests to the reality of each experiment. For example: results in Fig. 2.A. were obtained from a single batch of parasites (more than two groups, analytical replicates), and therefore one-way ANOVA (in each time point) is recommended; while results in Fig. 9 belong to different mice (more than two groups, biological replicates), and thus the best option would be a Kruskal-Wallis test. Additionally, results shown in Table 1 and 2 derived from comparisons between two groups of mice (experiments vs control), and therefore Mann-Whitney would be the desired tests (two groups, biological replicates). Please, perform tests again, and report them properly in M&M; section, as well as in each Figure/Table legend.

Finally, I stongly suggest the authors to improve the English of the manuscrpt for a better audience experience when reading the paper.

Responses and changes made to the manuscript are accepted and acknowledged. Accordingly, I consider the manuscript is now satisfactory enough to be accepted and published.