PONE-D-24-22192Myroides species, pathogenic spectrum and clinical microbiology sight in Mexican isolates.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lopez Jacome,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.   

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

In addition to addressing all the comments of the reviewers' kindly address the following;

1. Lines 120-124: Please provide the range of concentrations for each antimicrobial tested.

2. Lines 362–368: This is not clear. Please rewrite for clarity and flow.

3. Highlight the key limitations of the present study in the last paragraph of the discussion section.

4. In your conclusion, can you provide some recommendations based on your study findings?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a good manuscript with impressive efforts from the authors. A couple of areas require further clarification and possible additions

line 48 - The introduction in the abstract does not clearly state the significance of this study. What is the public health impact of understanding the pathogenic spectrum or clinical microbiology of Myroides species in Mexico? This needs to be clearly stated here.

line 55 - Indicate the study design that was used here. Was this a retrospective analysis? Also, indicate the period of the specimen was collection. This makes the methods clearer

line 57 - include total number of myroides isolates recovered or used and the percentage of species of particular type

line 58 - This statement makes it look like you identified only 6 instead of 7 strains highlighted in the main paper. can you clarify?

line 61 - Are we implying that 100% of isolates were resistant to all these antibiotics mentioned? Its not very clear from this sentence. If other otherwise, please state what percentage of isolates were resistant to antibiotic A and what percentage was resistant to antibiotic B e.t.c

line 96 - It will be interesting to know, any specific concerns or knowledge gaps regarding Myroides species in Mexico? Are there any existing studies on their prevalence or clinical impact in this region? it is not clear if you have done an effective review of relevant existing literature on Myroides species and their clinical significance, particularly in a Mexican context.

lines 102 - 190 - No ethical considerations were mentioned in the methods. Were there any ethical considerations related to the use of clinical specimens?

lines 102 - 190 - what data collection/recording tool was used to collect or record the data on characteristics of patients e.g Gender, Age, Comorbidities, Type of infection, Clinical sample Isolation, Date Treatment Outcome e.t.c? Did you use a proforma? was this a standard tool? I cant seem to find any details in the methods for this. please indicate

line 205 - Table 1 - Considering that this study has to do with Myroides species which are typically found in immunocompromised hosts, did you consider collecting or recording data on the immune status of the patients? I know you had a lot of burns patients. But could the this have anything to do with the treatment and outcome of these patients outlined in table 1?

lines 306 - 368 - what are the limitations of this study? I am not able to clearly see where you highlighted the limitations.

Since the phenotypic assay you used is not validated for the specific microorganisms tested (outside of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), can you elaborate on the potential limitations of using this assay for these particular strains?

- For strains C1996 and C4256 with 16 mm halos, which falls under the inconclusive range according to CLSI M100 for Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, how do you plan to address this inconclusiveness? Are there any additional confirmatory tests planned to definitively determine the presence or absence of carbapenemase activity in these strains?

- Given the limitations of the current assay, would exploring alternative methods for carbapenemase detection, such as molecular techniques (e.g., PCR), be a valuable addition to strengthen the study's findings?

- Can you suggest any modifications or optimizations to the current phenotypic assay that might improve its applicability to a broader range of microorganisms?

How do you plan to address the limitations of the current approach in future studies investigating carbapenemase activity in these specific microorganisms?

Reviewer #2: The authors described intelligently the materials and methods used in the research. The research results were reported with clarity devoid of ambiquity.

Areas of further research need to be succintly stated under the conclusion section in the manuscript. There are mentions of additional research in the manuscript in line 337 - 338 and 362-363; authors are advised to state them in the conclusion section.

Authors should provide study limitations in the manuscript

A typo/unclear statement in line 371. Authors are advised to edit this typographical error.

Reviewer #3: Myroides species, pathogenic spectrum and clinical microbiology sight in Mexican isolates.

Reviewer’s comments

• The Introduction was well-written with clear objectives, the gap identified and appropriate links given.

• The Methods used were appropriate for the set objectives.

• The results were accurately presented and the discussion derived from the findings and reasonable inference drawn.

• The analysis of the results were scientific and exact.

Accept after minor revisions.

Lines 137-149

Author should cite a reference for the method used for whole genome sequencing.

Lines 150-156

• Authors should cite a reference for the method used here too.

• Methods should be well cited.

Lines 371-371

• Myroides genus is not such as uncommon microorganism causing infections, both in

• immunosuppressed and immune competent hosts, with different outcomes depending on

• antimicrobial profiles. WHY NOT SAY: Myroides genus is a common microorganism causing...

Page 7-40

• Numbering is not appropriate. Need to check the numbering and number the required lines appropriately.

Page 15

• Are there more specific ways to itemize the data availability Statement.

• Ensure regular spacing through the write up.

In conclusion, authors should identify any limitations to the execution of the research as this is necessary and obvious going by the methods used.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdulhakeem Abayomi Olorukooba

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Taiwo Akindahunsi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-22192 reviewed_olorukooba.pdf

Myroides species, pathogenic spectrum and clinical microbiology sight in Mexican isolates.

PONE-D-24-22192R1

Dear Dr. Jacome,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed all my concerns and i do not have any other concerns with this submission. Great Job

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded appropriately to the suggested recommendations and corrections have been effected. The manuscript is technically sound and presented in an intelligible fashion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdulhakeem Abayomi Olorukooba

Reviewer #2: Yes: Olubunmi Margaret Ogbodu

**********