Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary 

This is a timely review of virulence factors and genomics in A. baumannii. Contrary to the antibiotic resistance theme, there are not that many reviews that link virulence and genomics. In this regard, the review is very welcome. However, some issues should be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

 

Major comments 

1. A. baumannii has also been reported in several animals and plants, see references below, and the idea this bacterium can be a One Health issue has been put forward. The authors may want to add a couple of sentences about this in the introduction.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616788/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37625430/

 

1. Regarding the highly dynamic genome of A. baumannii, recent studies have shown that phages also play a role in horizontal gene transfer between different lineages of A. baumannii. Specially considering antibiotic and virulence genes 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30337588/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31138576/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109174/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38301486/

 

 

1. As far as the 3rd and last section (“Virulence factors and molecular pathogenesis”) the authors want to mention which mobile genetic elements are transferring (if so) which virulence traits. 

 

Minor comments 

 

Lines 20-21: what do the authors mean by “bacterial ghost”? 

 

Line 51: “the top 10 threats” reads better.

 

Line 121-123: please rephrase; “assays in dry labs” is rather ambiguous

 

Lines 310-314: most of the sentences are in italics and with a bigger font

 

Lines 356-357: How can we use A. Baumannii’s arsenal in our favour? Please elaborate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is very readable but the English can be improved here and there.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all, we appreciate your positive and constructive comments.

Summary

This is a timely review of virulence factors and genomics in A. baumannii. Contrary to the antibiotic resistance theme, there are not that many reviews that link virulence and genomics. In this regard, the review is very welcome. However, some issues should be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

 

Major comments

1. A. baumannii has also been reported in several animals and plants, see references below, and the idea this bacterium can be a One Health issue has been put forward. The authors may want to add a couple of sentences about this in the introduction.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616788/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37625430/

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments together with the references have been considered in our manuscript (page 1, lines 41-45).

1. Regarding the highly dynamic genome of A. baumannii, recent studies have shown that phages also play a role in horizontal gene transfer between different lineages of A. baumannii. Specially considering antibiotic and virulence genes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30337588/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31138576/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109174/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38301486/

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments together with the references have been considered in our manuscript (page 3, lines 124-134; Page 4, lines 164-182).

1. As far as the 3rd and last section (“Virulence factors and molecular pathogenesis”) the authors want to mention which mobile genetic elements are transferring (if so) which virulence traits.

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript (page 4, lines 196-199). To prevent from repetition, the details have already been mentioned in table 2.  Moreover, because of your suitable comment we added some information in this regard in page 3, lines 135-151.

Minor comments

 

Lines 20-21: what do the authors mean by “bacterial ghost”?

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript and changed to "bacterial monster"

 

Line 51: “the top 10 threats” reads better.

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript.

 

Line 121-123: please rephrase; “assays in dry labs” is rather ambiguous

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript.

 

Lines 310-314: most of the sentences are in italics and with a bigger font

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript.

 

Lines 356-357: How can we use A. Baumannii’s arsenal in our favour? Please elaborate.

 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript (Pages 25-26; lines 459-468).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is very readable but the English can be improved here and there.

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent review on resistance mechanisms of Acinetobacter. 

The manuscript is comprehensive and informative.

The organization is poor. The items are so long that the reader could get lost. -I suggest more titles under 3. virulence

-Also suggest a simple figure to show all the mechanisms of resistance with their commonality and subtypes. 

-Figure 1 is excellent but not comprehensive and does not help more than showing the location of the efflux pumps. It is not a replacement for a figure to summarize all types of resistance.

-The table is too long and not very helpful in its current format. It could be an appendix and summarized one should be included in the manuscript 

-Finally I did not check for use of AI or other types of plagiarism. But this is an excellent review overall. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

First of all, we appreciate your positive and constructive comments.

This is an excellent review on resistance mechanisms of Acinetobacter. 

The manuscript is comprehensive and informative.

The organization is poor. The items are so long that the reader could get lost. -I suggest more titles under 3. virulence

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript. In this regard, we added subtitles to this section (Pages 4-9).

-Also suggest a simple figure to show all the mechanisms of resistance with their commonality and subtypes.

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript (Page 10, figure 1).

-Figure 1 is excellent but not comprehensive and does not help more than showing the location of the efflux pumps. It is not a replacement for a figure to summarize all types of resistance.

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript (Page 10, figure 1).

-The table is too long and not very helpful in its current format. It could be an appendix and summarized one should be included in the manuscript 

Thank you very much for your effective comments. Your comments have been considered in our manuscript (Page 5, table 1).

-Finally I did not check for use of AI or other types of plagiarism. But this is an excellent review overall. 

Thank you very much. No, AI recruitment or copy-paste have been done.