Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is based on the selection and analysis of 92 articles, more than half of which appeared between 2021-2025, which suggests the current concern for a deep understanding of the causes of fish diseases and solutions for integrated prevention and control.
The work is correctly structured, with a balance of the main components and a logical sequence of chapters and subchapters. The authors used a clear, scientific and rigorous writing style.
The summary tables designed for each higher taxon that includes disease-producing species of Silurus glanis are welcome. Their content is accessible to personnel working in aquaculture or fisheries management, well structured, synthetic, with reference to the structural peculiarities of the parasite, the affected organs, the symptoms of the host and the zoonotic potential.
The conclusions are clear, concise, based on a detailed, complex and carefully documented analysis of the relationship between the host, the species of pathogenic agents and the complex of factors that control it.
The diseases that occur in Silurus glanis have multiple causes if we consider the complicated development cycles involving several hosts and the dependence of eachone on a certain combination of external factors.
Combating pathogens that cause different diseases of catfish requires an integrated approach in which antiparasitic treatments are combined with the control of environmental factors, caution in introducing new species into aquatic ponds and the assessment of the optimal density of individuals in the ponds.

Certain parasites can affect human health, which requires their protection by protecting fish communities and controlling the spread of antibiotic resistance genes.
Effective control is based on a combination of traditional, modern and ecological methods.
In my opinion, the manuscript has a high scientific level and was carefully prepared.
1. I propose in the introduction to explain the One Health approach and the extent to which it is implemented through local, regional and international normative acts or programs.
2. I propose a bibliometric analysis of the studied literature to show which geographical areas the studies come from, the share of studies conducted in native habitats or in aquaculture systems, an assessment of the number of pathogens that cause diseases in S.glanis
3. I propose to introduce a discussion section in which it would be useful to integrate all the factors that influence the taxonomic diversity of pathogens and their geographical spread in a digitally designed model.
Taking into account the arguments presented, I propose acceptance for publication after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: amh-3931492, type Review, structurally includes the sections: Abstract, Introduction, Conclusions, Abbreviations and References, more or less respecting the journal's instructions for authors.

In this sense, to increase the scientific value of the manuscript, we encourage authors to revise the entire paper so as to introduce the sections: Materials and methods as well as Discussion. We also encourage authors to use the elements provided in the Manuscript Preparation chapter, for example the PRISMA guidelines.

From a scientific point of view, we encourage the authors of the manuscript to intervene in the text in such a way as to present the scientific names, in Latin, complete, for example: Ichthyophtirius multifiliis, Fouquet, 1876. We also encourage the authors of the manuscript to harmonize the title of this work with the content elements, taking into account non-animate pathogens. In order to increase the practical value of the manuscript in addition to the scientific one, given the analysis of diseases in the species Silurus glanis, Linnaeus, 1758, we also encourage the authors of the manuscript to include a column related to treatments in the presented tables.References are sufficient and representative but we encourage authors to use the necessary hyperlinks to them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your Review paper entitled "Pathogens of European catfish Silurus glanis (L., 1758): a review" has been carefully reviewed,

This Review is very important since it highlights on the main pathogens that infect on of the largest types of freshwater-fish in Europe "European Catfish" (Silurus glanis L 1758). This paper is very important from microbiological and public health points of view since it shows the main pathogens that can infect this microorganism with the possibility to infect humans.

The Paper is well written in English language, well presented and well designed and the tables are very clear for readers.

Kindly fine below some of my minor comments regarding this work:

01- In the Introduction section, the first sentence, Lines 38-40, you don't need to put 7 references just for this point, you are invited to remove 5 references and keep at least two suitable ones.

02- In Table 1, you are invited to put a reference(s) for each virus you talked about.

03- In Table 2, you are invited to put a reference(s) for each bacterium you talked about.

04- In Table 3, you are invited to put a reference(s) for each protozoan parasite you talked about.

05- In Table 4, you are invited to put a reference(s) for each helminthic parasite you talked about.

06- In Table 5, you are invited to put a reference(s) for each oomycete you talked about.

Best Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.