Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Figure 3 and line 148. The figure should be updated with the latest available data, as it has been revised in May 2022. The latest changes (if any) should be updated.

2. Line 170. ¿Can give us the authors some information about plasmids present in these sequenced strains?. This would be interesting for readers.

3. Lines 302-304. ¿Can the authors provide information on whether the infections from which P. aeruginosa strains were isolated were monomicrobial or polymicrobial?

4. Lines 305, 355 and so on: Pseudomonas. Writing in italics.

5. It might be interesting to include a map of Serbia with the points where the study has been conducted, isolation of the strains.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This nationwide study is well-designed and results obtained are novel. The topic is important to the field of microbiology, as well as molecular genetics. Writing style is good. The manuscript is sufficiently and appropriately illustrated with figures and tables (excellent quality). The discussion is comprehensive.

I have no specific comments and remarks.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.