Atopobium vaginae: An Overview of the Bacteria Through Clinical Cases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text lacks a uniform designation for Atopobium vaginae (Atopobium vaginae, A. vaginae, A. vaginae, F. vaginae). The section Introduction and short bacteria overview lacks information on the pathogenicity of A. vaginae, especially in relation to biofilm formation in BV.  In sections 2 and 3, no information is provided on the time interval of sampling and on the number of patients, samples (gynecological samples, washings from oral cavity), isolates of A. vaginae. There is also no information on the number of isolates tested using biochemical tests, disk diffusion method and PCR. Figure 2 is not clear and understandable. Discussion is not sufficient. It is written in the discussion: "Our observations highlight the variability of antibiotic resistance of A. vaginae depending on the strain..." without concrete explanation and description of the differences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is not sufficinet (is/are, analyziz....). 

Author Response

Comment:

The text lacks a uniform designation for Atopobium vaginae (Atopobium vaginae, A. vaginae, A. vaginae, F. vaginae). The section Introduction and short bacteria overview lacks information on the pathogenicity of A. vaginae, especially in relation to biofilm formation in BV.  In sections 2 and 3, no information is provided on the time interval of sampling and on the number of patients, samples (gynecological samples, washings from oral cavity), isolates of A. vaginae. There is also no information on the number of isolates tested using biochemical tests, disk diffusion method and PCR. Figure 2 is not clear and understandable. Discussion is not sufficient. It is written in the discussion: "Our observations highlight the variability of antibiotic resistance of A. vaginae depending on the strain..." without concrete explanation and description of the differences.

 

Response:

We truly appreciate your positiv feedback on the manuscript's potential and its adherence to scientific methodology.

In response, we have standardized the name to A. vaginae throughout the manuscript. Although detailed data on pathogenicity is limited, we added information on biofilm formation in BV. Details on sampling intervals, number of patients, sample types, and number of A. vaginae isolates tested (including methods used) have now been included. Figure 2 was improved for clarity, and the Discussion expanded with specific examples of strain-dependent antibiotic resistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The research Vaseruk et al. (2025) is interesting and gives new information. A. vaginae exist in almost all patients with BV but have also been found in healthy women's vagina. This organism represents a highly intriguing subject for further investigation, given its involvement in a wide range of pathological conditions and the current gaps in understanding its antibiotic susceptibility and metabolic characteristics. This research seeks to bridge critical knowledge gaps and contribute to more effective therapeutic strategies. Manuscript is properly organized, fairly well written and clear but  some of suggestions are offered in the specific comments below that should help clarify some points.   Title and abstract: reflects well the content of manuscript. Graphical abstract is clear and easy to follow. Abstract: The Abstract reflects the content of manuscript The introduction: makes a proper introduction to the subject matter of the paper, is well written and the goal is clearly formulated. The introduction fully gives an overview of the topic being addressed and includes a short bacteria overview.   Materials and Methods: The methodology uses diagnostic tests, including microbiological, but also based on molecular biology, which is a strength of the case.  But please add more details about the algorithm of culture isolation and growth conditionsand bacterial identification and biochemical trials. Results and Discussion: Well written. Well written. The paper is clear and succinct. Please add the limitation of the study. In the Conclusions it is necessary to summarize main findings of the study. Tables: Tables are clear and easy to follow. Figures and descriptions of legend are clear and understandable. Please use italic for Latin names of pathogens. There was an English mistake in the mauscript (Table 1 caption, I suggest you check the text (Complete analyziz). I believe that the work is not only cognitive, but also applied.   Reference: The manuscript makes proper use of the latest references

Author Response

Comment:

The research Vaseruk et al. (2025) is interesting and gives new information. A. vaginae exist in almost all patients with BV but have also been found in healthy women's vagina. This organism represents a highly intriguing subject for further investigation, given its involvement in a wide range of pathological conditions and the current gaps in understanding its antibiotic susceptibility and metabolic characteristics. This research seeks to bridge critical knowledge gaps and contribute to more effective therapeutic strategies. Manuscript is properly organized, fairly well written and clear but  some of suggestions are offered in the specific comments below that should help clarify some points.   Title and abstract: reflects well the content of manuscript. Graphical abstract is clear and easy to follow. Abstract: The Abstract reflects the content of manuscript The introduction: makes a proper introduction to the subject matter of the paper, is well written and the goal is clearly formulated. The introduction fully gives an overview of the topic being addressed and includes a short bacteria overview.   Materials and Methods: The methodology uses diagnostic tests, including microbiological, but also based on molecular biology, which is a strength of the case.  But please add more details about the algorithm of culture isolation and growth conditionsand bacterial identification and biochemical trials. Results and Discussion: Well written. Well written. The paper is clear and succinct. Please add the limitation of the study. In the Conclusions it is necessary to summarize main findings of the study. Tables: Tables are clear and easy to follow. Figures and descriptions of legend are clear and understandable. Please use italic for Latin names of pathogens. There was an English mistake in the mauscript (Table 1 caption, I suggest you check the text (Complete analyziz). I believe that the work is not only cognitive, but also applied.   Reference: The manuscript makes proper use of the latest references

 

Response:

We truly appreciate your positive feedback on the manuscript's potential and its adherence to scientific methodology.

Conclusion corrected. We use italic for Latin names of pathogens. Minor English errors corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on addressing the important issue of characterizing the bacterial pathogen responsible for causing bacterial vaginosis. I have some of the comments:

The introduction can be made concise by removing the details about the immunomodulatory role of bacteria during infection since the study is not primarily focused in studying immune response in this context.

In the methods, include the total number of cases under study. Specific details on bacterial identification by PCR should be provided such as primers/probes. Is the bacteria also isolated from the oral cavity as mentioned in abstract and results?

The study concluded mentioning the strain to strain variation in metabolic activity and morphological characteristics of the A. vaginae. Is this the conclusion drawn based on the data from single isolate as shown in the result section? 

Consider adding a brief description of why Prevotella was used as a reference isolate for antibiotic susceptibility testing. 

Author Response

Comment:

The manuscript focuses on addressing the important issue of characterizing the bacterial pathogen responsible for causing bacterial vaginosis. I have some of the comments:

The introduction can be made concise by removing the details about the immunomodulatory role of bacteria during infection since the study is not primarily focused in studying immune response in this context.

In the methods, include the total number of cases under study. Specific details on bacterial identification by PCR should be provided such as primers/probes. Is the bacteria also isolated from the oral cavity as mentioned in abstract and results?

The study concluded mentioning the strain to strain variation in metabolic activity and morphological characteristics of the A. vaginae. Is this the conclusion drawn based on the data from single isolate as shown in the result section?

Consider adding a brief description of why Prevotella was used as a reference isolate for antibiotic susceptibility testing.

 

Response:

We truly appreciate your feedback on the manuscript's potential and its adherence to scientific methodology.

Regarding the introduction, we chose to retain the part on immunomodulatory abilities, as it provides context for understanding the role of A. vaginae in BV pathogenesis. However, we have expanded the section by adding information on biofilm formation to better link these aspects. Other reviewers highly appreciate the immunological part, so we consider it necessary to leave it in order not to violate the feedback from other reviewers.

The total number of cases and isolates, including those from the oral cavity, is now clearly stated.

Concerning PCR, we are unable to disclose primer sequences due to the commercial confidentiality of the test kit used, but we have included all accessible information such as reagent names and sources.

The conclusions are not based on a single isolate—we analyzed 12 isolates in total. All were tested for biochemical characteristics using the VITEK-2 system. The tables presented reflect the most representative and diverse metabolic and morphological profiles observed.

We have corrected the information that "the strain to strain variation in metabolic activity and morphological characteristics of the A. vaginae"

Lastly, we added a brief explanation of why Prevotella was used as a reference isolate in antibiotic susceptibility testing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf