Next Article in Journal
Pre-Emptive Antimicrobial Locks Decrease Long-Term Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Scabicidal Potential of Coconut Seed Extract in Rabbits via Downregulating Inflammatory/Immune Cross Talk: A Comprehensive Phytochemical/GC-MS and In Silico Proof
Previous Article in Journal
Synthesis of Green Engineered Silver Nanoparticles through Urtica dioica: An Inhibition of Microbes and Alleviation of Cellular and Organismal Toxicity in Drosophila melanogaster
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Bacteriocins Revitalize Non-Effective Penicillin G to Overcome Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Antibiotics 2022, 11(12), 1691; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121691
by Kirill V. Ovchinnikov 1, Christian Kranjec 1, Tage Thorstensen 2,3, Harald Carlsen 1 and Dzung B. Diep 1,*
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Antibiotics 2022, 11(12), 1691; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121691
Submission received: 3 November 2022 / Revised: 15 November 2022 / Accepted: 19 November 2022 / Published: 24 November 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is very interesting for readers and used a complete approach to improve the actual understanding on strategies to avoid/reduce antimicrobial resistance. This research has several merits and is well-done research. However, the current version requires several modification before meet the high-quality standard of this journal and be able to be accepted for publication.

 

Major comments

The title does not reflect the content of this research. Authors must inform that their study was done using only MRSP. Additionally, remove the point from in the end of the title and subtopics

References in the text must be modified to the journal style [1] [2]

M&M section must be inserted previously to Results. Additionally, several phrases in results sections must be transferred to M&M section. In the current version, the results section is a mix with M&M. The same occurs in discussion where results are presented.

Authors must include information about the identification of S. pseudointermedius from dog’s skin. How did they confirm this specie? Which tests were used?

Authors must provide more detailed information about the statistical analyses. This section is very poor, and several information are widespread in other sections.

In the discussion section, more practical applications must be discussed, and additionally, more information about antimicrobial resistance in One Health context would be interesting to be included.

There is no conclusion section.

Authors must provide their specified contributions in this research (authors contribution statement)

 

Minor

·        The title does not reflect the content of this research. Authors must inform that their study was done using only MRSP.

·        Additionally, remove the point from in the end of the title.

·         To avoid shortage of this source of antibiotics, searching for anti-9 microbials aimed at veterinary applications is becoming especially important – Please, confirm the correct use of English language in this phrase.

·        I suggest removing “murine model” in keywords and use other appropriate term

·         Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is a major opportunistic pathogen in many animal species including dogs and cats and to lesser extent humans - – Please, confirm the correct use of English language in this phrase.

·        Line 30 – don’t use etc

·        Lines 71-72 – specify the commercially available antibiotics used. Restrict your aim

·        Authors must reference the EUCAST instead of providing the link (lines 310 – 315)

·        Reference CLSI (322)

·        There is no need of Figure 5. Authors can include this amino acid sequence in the text

·        Line 332 – Which antibiotics?

·        Line 349 – provide the reference instead link

·        A table containing all the groups formed in this research would be useful to help readers to understand the experimental design. It is not clear

·        Line 354 – Modify this phrase. Continue after previously….

·        Topic 4.6 – Authors must clarify the reason for doing this only for PenG

·        Supplemental Figure 1 does not contribute to the understanding and can be removed

·        Line 139 -140 – remove this phrase. It is not your results!

·        Line 140 – 144- M&M section

·        Line 197 – statistical analyses section

·        Lines 215 – 216 – reference

·        Figure 3 – it is a result!! Not discussion!

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article

Bacteriocins revitalize non-effective penicillin G to overcome methicillin resistance

Well written article. Methodologically correct with a clear goal. The results are excellently presented. The discussion commented on the basis of other studies. References follow results

Accept

Author Response

Well written article. Methodologically correct with a clear goal. The results are excellently presented. The discussion commented on the basis of other studies. References follow results

Accept

Authors’ response: We are very thankful to the Reviewer #2 for the positive response.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes original results regarding the synergistic effect of some antibacterial compounds (bacteriocins and antibiotics) against antibiotic resistant pathogens. Antibiotic resistance is an actual problem worldwide and finding new treatments against resistant pathogens is very challenging in human and veterinary medicine. In this context, I believe that such studies (as the ones presented in the manuscript) are important and would be of interest for the scientific world.

My only suggestion is related to Table 1 and Figure 2, for a better understanding:

-Table 1: better explain the last two lines; also mention how many times you repeated the MIC determinations.

- Figure 2: add letters on the two pictures, to differentiate the cream with/without the antibacterial mixture. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved. All  my mandatory suggestions were accepted. I do not have additional suggestions to improve this manuscript.

Back to TopTop