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 December 14th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 14th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 4th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 13th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 13, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Many thanks for addressing all of the reviewers' comments. Now your manuscript is ready for publication in PeerJ.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. All the concerns mentioned in my previous review have been addressed.

Experimental design

Nothing to add.

Validity of the findings

Nothing to add.

Additional comments

Nothing to add.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I appreciate the authors for their prompt and thorough revisions addressing my earlier concerns. The modifications have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and I am now satisfied with the completeness and clarity of the content.

Experimental design

'no comment'

Validity of the findings

'no comment'

Additional comments

'no comment'

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jan 14, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The manuscript has been reviewed. The study is well presented and the methodology is correct. However, it contains numerous grammatical and spelling errors, so it is suggested that the English be thoroughly corrected throughout the text. Another very important consideration is that the figure legends are not correct. Please read the guidelines for authors and follow them in this and all sections of your manuscript.

Reviewers have detected other errors and suggested modifications. All of these should be considered in the revised manuscript.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.

**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. There are some English language corrections which need to be focused on:
Example:
a) Line 24: disease spelling
b) Line 117 & 169: run on the agarose gel.
c) Line 111: Primers were used for PCR of the targeted gene......

2. Reference missing- Line 44-45.

3. Some sentences need rephrasing- Line 67: The transfer of resistance genes from one bacterium to another (horizontal transfer) is very common.

4. Please include any reference of effects of consumption of such diseased trouts in human.
Try to briefly point out this aspect.

5. Line 249 & 260: resistant should be replaced by resistance.

Experimental design

1. Experimental design looks good.

2. Line 82: Please clarify, if it is January and April or January to April, since you mentioned that the study was conducted for a period of 4 months (Line 24).

Validity of the findings

1. Findings seems to be robust.

2. The mention of 'n' number would be helpful to determine the reproducibility of the data.

Additional comments

1. Line 261: I appreciate your awareness of how media might affect the resistance to certain drugs.
Sheep blood contains hemin, and there are references indicating how hemin plays a role in
determination of antimicrobial resistance.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Review for Yilmaz et al

This study focused on V. salmoninarum, an emerging pathogen in a rainbow trout farm's broodstock in southwestern Turkey. The objective was to assess the bacterium's antibiotic resistance and genetic profile, crucial for effective disease management in aquaculture.

Diseased broodstocks were collected, displaying symptoms like furuncles, anemic gills, and internal hemorrhages, but no external parasites. The bacteria isolated from these fish were identified as V. salmoninarum. The study's significant part involved examining the antibiotic resistance of the isolates. The found resistance to multiple antibiotics. of 18 screened antibiotic resistance genes, 7 (tetA, sul1, sul2, sul3, dhfr1, ereB, and floR) were present in the ESN1 strain.

Phylogenetic analysis showed that the V. salmoninarum strains, including ESN1, are related to global strains, indicating a wide geographical spread. The study highlights the importance of understanding antibiotic resistance at the strain level for managing diseases in aquaculture. It underlines the need for regular monitoring of fish farms and suggests the potential role of vaccinations in controlling infections. This research provides valuable insights into the genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance of V. salmoninarum, contributing to future disease control strategies in fish farming.

However, I have a major concern: the figure legends were not written appropriately, and the manuscript contained several grammatical errors."

Line 24: "diseae" should be spelled as "disease".

Lines 30-33: The abstract lists a large number of antibiotics and resistance genes without much context. For a general audience, it might be more informative to briefly explain the significance of these findings.

Line 35-36: The mention of "other countries (USA and Jura)" is somewhat vague. It might be clearer to specify the context or relevance of these geographical references.

Line 55: and onwards: The bacterium is referred to as "Vagococcus salmoninarum". Ensure that this is the correct and consistently used name throughout the study, as earlier sections mentioned "V. salmoninarum".

Line 200: The term "cytochrome oxidase" is misspelled as "cytochromoxidase"

Line 321: The term "realation" is incorrect; it should be "relation."

Line 322: What is profilactive? Is it prophylactic

Lines 322-323: Rephrase the sentence.
“…to epidemiologic study and to determine optimal profilactive prevention V. salmoninarum as emerging fish pathogen, vaccine is importance for prevention and control of the diseases."

to

"...for epidemiological studies and to determine optimal prophylactic measures against V. salmoninarum as an emerging fish pathogen. Vaccination is important for the prevention and control of these diseases."

Table 2 needs lot of improvement please aling all the antibiotics and susceptibility values.

Figure 2 Legends are missing.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

This study focused on V. salmoninarum, an emerging pathogen in a rainbow trout farm's broodstock in southwestern Turkey. The objective was to assess the bacterium's antibiotic resistance and genetic profile, crucial for effective disease management in aquaculture.

Diseased broodstocks were collected, displaying symptoms like furuncles, anemic gills, and internal hemorrhages, but no external parasites. The bacteria isolated from these fish were identified as V. salmoninarum. The study's significant part involved examining the antibiotic resistance of the isolates. The found resistance to multiple antibiotics. of 18 screened antibiotic resistance genes, 7 (tetA, sul1, sul2, sul3, dhfr1, ereB, and floR) were present in the ESN1 strain.

Phylogenetic analysis showed that the V. salmoninarum strains, including ESN1, are related to global strains, indicating a wide geographical spread. The study highlights the importance of understanding antibiotic resistance at the strain level for managing diseases in aquaculture. It underlines the need for regular monitoring of fish farms and suggests the potential role of vaccinations in controlling infections. This research provides valuable insights into the genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance of V. salmoninarum, contributing to future disease control strategies in fish farming.

However, I have a major concern: the figure legends were not written appropriately, and the manuscript contained several grammatical errors."

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.