Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 1st, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 10th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 12th, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 10th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 10, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear authors,

The manuscript is now ready for publication.

Best regards

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

It is the reviewer idea that the changes added to the present manuscript are correcting and adjusting the aim of the present work, making it more understandable for the scientific community.
It is for this reason that I accept the manuscript in present form, without needing further changes.
kind regards and Merry Christmas
Andrea Del Giudice

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Additional comments

.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The authors have made sufficient revisions and addressed the comments. All the changes performed in order to answer all the reviewers have helped to improve the paper. And I suggest that this paper be accepted without further modification.

Experimental design

Please see details in Basic reporting.

Validity of the findings

Please see details in Basic reporting.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 10, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to this prestigious journal.
Please follow the reviewers' instructions.

Best regards

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is of a great interest for the present journal, the topic addressed is something original and therefore it is considered highly important for us. However, there are some sections that should be reviewed to make the article more accessible to an international audience.

First of all, it is the reviewer idea that the whole manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker to make the text more fluent and avoid any type of grammar or syntactical mistakes.

The abstract is a key section of your work, it should give a proper overview to the reader, it should be captivating and extremely precise about the information displayed in the text. It is the reviewer idea that the whole abstract should be rewritten to properly fit its core features.

Experimental design

INTRODUCTION:

This section depicts properly the main topic’s background although there might be some parts that should be revised
1. First of all, it is the revisor idea that this section could be implemented by better explaining each method previously described or each machine used to detect the type of bacteria.
2. From line 75 to 79, please explain better what the authors mean by referring to high-throughput sequencing methods based on bacterial 16S rDNA.


MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This is the most crucial part of any kind of original research. A bad methodology is something that is clearly not acceptable for any type of journal. The methodology presented in the present article is very well presented although it could be better structured. The division in paragraphs is a useful tool to describe a step-by-step methodology, and the authors decided to do so in their manuscript. However, it is the reviewer idea that a more precise division, even in sub sections, could help the understanding of the current methodology.


DISCUSSION:

The discussion section is a crucial part for the manuscript. It is the point where the author’s hypothesis has to be confirmed by the produced data and results.
However, in the present sections it seems that this kind of structure is not fully represented, therefore it is the revisor idea that this part of the article must be improved and implemented.

Validity of the findings

.

Additional comments

Overall, the manuscript represents a good specimen over the evaluation of such common situation regarding the microbiota diversity in dental unit waterlines. It is therefore of a great interest for the present journal, however some extensive English revisions, some paragraph implementations and enrichments should be addressed before the submission procedure goes on.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article to this prestigious journal.
The manuscript is well presented but it presents some issues:

Abstract: Abstract should be revised and make it more appealing.

Keywords: To ensure a properly research in medical databases, use MeSH terms to find appealing keywords that could be helpful in finding your article.

“Additionally, in 2015, nine children were infected by Mycobacterium after having a pulpotomy at a pediatric dentistry practice in Georgia, United States (Peralta et al., 2015). Microorganisms in DUWLs, especially opportunistic pathogens, are potential risk factors for medically compromised or immunocompromised patients receiving dental treatment. The bacterial concentrations in some studies have far…” Please be more specific citing more articles
Introduction should be extended.
AIM should be revised
Materials and Methods and Results sections are well written and presented
In the statistical analysis do the authors provide a descriptive analysis of the sample? Why do the authors have used a non parametric test such as the Kruskal–Wallis H test?

This indicates that microbial contamination in DUWLs requires more attention, since microorganisms in dental treatment water can be swallowed or inhaled by patients via water flow or aerosols (Spagnolo et al., 2020). We also found no significant difference between water samples from the morning (before patient treatments) and afternoon (after all patient treatments). Authors should better describe this findings.
Discussion section should be entirely revised and make it more interesting to the reader.
Conclusion must be entirely revised making it more appealing and expanded.
English spell revision is necessary.

Check if it necessary the references section. (For e.g. PMID is not necessary).


Best Regards.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The study evaluated the bacterial concentrations, diversity, and community structure of microorganisms present in dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) in a dental hospital’s periodontics, endodontics, and prosthodontics departments through cultivation and high-throughput sequencing method. Results demonstrated that the bacteria concentrations and microbiome composition is influenced by the characteristics of dental specialty. And some potentially human-pathogenic bacteria were detected in the DUWLs. The authors thus concluded that validated disinfection protocol should be treated to control microbial contamination in DUWLs among different departments.

In the Discussion part, the different distributions of bacteria in water samples among the departments and the potentially human-pathogenic bacteria detected in different specialties are discussed. The citation is not enough, and there is a lack of comparison with some important and recent papers.
Such as:
1. Distinct Microbial Community of Accumulated Biofilm in Dental Unit Waterlines of Different Specialties. Fan C, Gu H, Liu L, Zhu H, Yan J, Huo Y. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021 Jun 17;11:670211. PMID: 34222041
2. Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in dental unit waterlines. Costa D, Mercier A, Gravouil K, Lesobre J, Delafont V, Bousseau A, Verdon J, Imbert C.Water Res. 2015 Sep 15;81:223-31. PMID: 26072020
3. High throughput sequencing-based analysis of microbial diversity in dental unit waterlines supports the importance of providing safe water for clinical use. Zhang Y, Ping Y, Zhou R, Wang J, Zhang G.J Infect Public Health. 2018 May-Jun;11(3):357-363. PMID: 28988812

There are some grammatical errors or missing words throughout the text, it would be better to improve the English language. For example, Line 235 “Bacteria may had different” should be “Bacteria may have different”, Line 280 “analyse” should be “analyze”. In addition to some grammatical errors, there are a number of inadequate usage of spaces. Some examples include Line 93 “prosthodontics department(Table S1)”, Line 173 “Proteobacteria(Fig.1A) ”, Line 274 “used cultivation”, Line 280 “used cultivation”, Line 290 “validated disinfection”.

Experimental design

About the sample collection method in the study, there are 2 kinds of methods to collect the sample. The 5 ml water samples were used to further culture and count the bacteria concentration, while the 250 ml water samples were used for the sequencing. Why don’t use the same type of water sample for the test of bacteria concentration and sequence? Besides, for the count of CFU, literature usually used the R2A plate, please explain the reason for choosing the BIH plate.
The general information of sampling Dental Chair Units could influence the bacteria composition. It will be better to provide the general information of Dental Chair Units, such as Operating years, Age Average patients per month, Number of patients on the sampling day.

The author described that the raw data have been submitted to NCBI, but I couldn’t find the deposit under the provided accession number PRJNA690183. Please explain the detail of the database, such as NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) database.
There is error in the department column of the supplement_Data_S1: there is “4”, which may be “3”, as there is only “1=PE,2=EN,3=PR”.

Validity of the findings

The experiments are obtained using good technology and bioinformatics analysis.
Figure 1 shows the results of Bacteria composition in the periodontics, endodontics, and prosthodontics departments. It is better to give a comparison of the bacterial composition of different classification levels in different departments.

Table 3 shows the observed species, but the method part describes Ace, which is inconsistent.

In Figure 4, the texts are blurred, and the resolution needs to be improved.

Additional comments

The study is interesting and useful for the clinic control of risk infection and provides detailed information about the bacterial diversity among different specialties. And I think the manuscript needs minor changes as mentioned above.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.