Public Health Implications of Antimicrobial Resistance in Wildlife at the One Health Interface^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good job! Thank you

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for its kind comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report: "Public Health and Policy Implications of Antimicrobial Resistance in Wildlife at the One Health Interface"

The manuscript highlights the critical issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in wildlife, specifically focusing on extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing (ESBL) and carbapenem-resistant (CARBA) Enterobacterales. Recognizing AMR as a global threat leading to human fatalities and substantial health challenges for domestic animals, the study aims to shed light on the public health impact of AMR in wildlife and proposes policy actions to mitigate its spread. The authors analyze key trends, scrutinize the terminology used to describe AMR in wildlife, assess the inclusion of wildlife in national plans to combat AMR in Latin America and Europe, and discuss the broader public health implications of AMR circulation at the One Health interface.

Overall, the study provides a comprehensive and timely exploration of a crucial aspect of antimicrobial resistance – its presence in wildlife and the potential implications for public health. The authors adeptly consolidate existing knowledge on AMR in wildlife and emphasize the need to bridge the current gaps in understanding its dynamics. The paper convincingly argues that the public health impact of AMR in wildlife is not yet fully elucidated, necessitating urgent attention and comprehensive policy measures.

Some of the minor suggestions are: The title can be rephrased as the paper is not describing the policy implications, but focusing on recommendations

Line 17: ‘Hundreds of studies’: Generic phrase, please revise it.

Line 29: Authors should reconsider the use of word ‘polluting’ in this context.

Line 156: ‘if these major implications’: revise the sentence

Line 165-181: the points can be listed as a)…, b)….., c)…..etc.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for its usefull comments and have now adressed all of them as follows:

Some of the minor suggestions are: The title can be rephrased as the paper is not describing the policy implications, but focusing on recommendations

Title has been rephrased to : ' Public health implications of antimicrobial-resistance in wildlife at the One Health interface'

Line 17: ‘Hundreds of studies’: Generic phrase, please revise it.

Changed to 'AMR circulation in wildlife has also been reported worldwide'

Line 29: Authors should reconsider the use of word ‘polluting’ in this context.

Change to 'spreading to'

Line 156: ‘if these major implications’: revise the sentence

Change to ''if these implications are taking place'

Line 165-181: the points can be listed as a)…, b)….., c)…..etc.

Points added to the list