On 2016 Apr 25, Johannes M Dijkstra commented:

The title of this article "CXCR3 chemokine receptor enables local CD8(+) T cell migration" is not substantiated by the experimental data, because increased presence of the CD8(+) T cells in the infected cell area may be explained by increased binding.

Although not immediately clear to readers, the article is mostly about a time window effect at days 5-7 after infection. Important observations for the virus titers on those days should be shown if Fig. 3F, in which the data for the day 5 p.i. result are contradictory to the story. That figure is either an error, or needs serious discussion.

Previously, I have posted these comments plus a few additional minor ones on the Immunity site below the article, but the authors did not respond, and Immunity made the comments close to invisible. Then I placed my comments as a correspondence article on F1000Research, where the advantage is that independent third parties can have their say as reviewers. For more explanation of the above points, please see that web-site http://f1000research.com/articles/4-922/v1 .

However, the F1000Research system requires two reviewers before the publication can proceed, and I only managed to find one reviewer within the relevant research field. The one reviewer, Dr. J.R. Groom, as I interpret her words, agreed with me that Fig. 3F requires an explanation by the authors, but feels that the text by Hickman et al. on the migration versus binding issue is more nuanced than I portray it in my criticism. Her comments can be read in detail at http://f1000research.com/articles/4-922/v1 . Although I do agree with her that within the Hickman et al. text some nuances can be found, that does not take away that they boldly and in my opinion without substantiation concluded a migration enabling effect in the title and that most readers will understand the wordings by Hickman et al. similar to as reflected in Fig. 1 of the corresponding preview article by Beura and Masopust http://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(15)00095-3 .

Both Dr. Groom and I agree that the technical part of the experiments in the Hickman et al. article is mostly sound.

On 2016 Apr 25, Johannes M Dijkstra commented:

The title of this article "CXCR3 chemokine receptor enables local CD8(+) T cell migration" is not substantiated by the experimental data, because increased presence of the CD8(+) T cells in the infected cell area may be explained by increased binding.

Although not immediately clear to readers, the article is mostly about a time window effect at days 5-7 after infection. Important observations for the virus titers on those days should be shown if Fig. 3F, in which the data for the day 5 p.i. result are contradictory to the story. That figure is either an error, or needs serious discussion.

Previously, I have posted these comments plus a few additional minor ones on the Immunity site below the article, but the authors did not respond, and Immunity made the comments close to invisible. Then I placed my comments as a correspondence article on F1000Research, where the advantage is that independent third parties can have their say as reviewers. For more explanation of the above points, please see that web-site http://f1000research.com/articles/4-922/v1 .

However, the F1000Research system requires two reviewers before the publication can proceed, and I only managed to find one reviewer within the relevant research field. The one reviewer, Dr. J.R. Groom, as I interpret her words, agreed with me that Fig. 3F requires an explanation by the authors, but feels that the text by Hickman et al. on the migration versus binding issue is more nuanced than I portray it in my criticism. Her comments can be read in detail at http://f1000research.com/articles/4-922/v1 . Although I do agree with her that within the Hickman et al. text some nuances can be found, that does not take away that they boldly and in my opinion without substantiation concluded a migration enabling effect in the title and that most readers will understand the wordings by Hickman et al. similar to as reflected in Fig. 1 of the corresponding preview article by Beura and Masopust http://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(15)00095-3 .

Both Dr. Groom and I agree that the technical part of the experiments in the Hickman et al. article is mostly sound.