Intestinal Carriage of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Salmonella enterica from Chickens and Poultry Farmers in Dschang, in the Western Region of Cameroon
, Cedric Dylan Seugnou Nana 1, Joelle Nzenya 1, Charlene Tomi 1, Noemy Chounna 1, Olivier Pomte 1, Benjamin D. Thumamo Pokam 3 and Teke Apalata 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Many references are repeated, I would recommend looking for more references to enrich the introduction and discussion.
I would recommend changing the graphics, you can make the graphics in r, r-studio, SAS, JMP.
The tables in the text are indicated with a Roman number, in the figure it is with an Arabic number, correct.
In tables 4 and 5 add the values of standard deviation and error In the discussion it is necessary to discuss more about the statistical values and their relationship with the prevalence of salmonella, the presence of citations are very repeated, it does not allow a good discussion.
Author Response
Open Reviewer 1
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Many references are repeated, I would recommend looking for more references to enrich the introduction and discussion.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we looked for some ones and added in the manuscript
I would recommend changing the graphics, you can make the graphics in r, r-studio, SAS, JMP.
The tables in the text are indicated with a Roman number, in the figure it is with an Arabic number, correct.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
In tables 4 and 5 add the values of standard deviation and error In the discussion it is necessary to discuss more about the statistical values and their relationship with the prevalence of salmonella, the presence of citations are very repeated, it does not allow a good discussion.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we did it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Salmonella is a pathogen of considerable health concern, given its zoonotic potential, and is frequently linked to foodborne outbreaks. A greater concern is related to the antimicrobial resistance of some strains, which lead to therapeutic failure and death. In particular, ESBL strains are dangerous due to their resistance to many molecules, including cephalosporins. In my opinion, the research question of the manuscript is very important, especially for two main reasons, namely its One health meaning and the country involved (Cameroon). I think the data from this article might be useful for the veterinarians, farmers and competent authorities of Cameroon and other countries of the Gulf of Guinea.
However, the whole manuscript needs much more work before to be ready for a first peer revision.
First of all, there is a great issue with the manuscript format itself. As a matter of fact, you should have added line numbers in order to make the reviewing process easier. Without lines, It was quite difficult to point out and list errors. Another matter of great importance is English language: unfortunately, the whole manuscript needs a thorough revision in order to be fully understood and therefore reviewed. After these first two great barriers, I will start to try talking about the manuscript itself.
There are some more concerns before starting the single parts of the manuscript. First, you should always avoid sentences that are separated by a semicolon: It is much preferable to write shorter sentences. Moreover, when you write an acronym ALWAYS write the extended version the first time you use it. Furthermore, try not to write extreme sentences with utter truths, but rather express doubts.
There are some points about the title: for example, there should be an hypen between “lactamase” and “producing”. Moreover, maybe Dschang should be called a city rather than a town, and I would suggest a comma to replace “of”. A concern from the title and the whole manuscript is the word “breeder” which I would replace with “farmer”. As a matter of fact, the word “breeder” is less frequently used, and might lead to error, thinking about broiler breeders instead of human farmers. Again, if “hens” stand for “layers” I would suggest a change; if “hens” is used as a general “chicken”, it can be the word used.
Concerning introduction, you should find a better definition for NTS. The 3rd sentence is not clear: did you mean that poultry is the most reported source for zoonosis? Moreover, maybe you should add a couple of examples of presence of ESBL in veterinary medicine around the world, preferably in Africa. The 11th sentence (3rd paragraph) “In Cameroon, existing threats are mainly attributed to the avian economy because the consumption of poultry products and the direct or indirect contact with hens’ faeces are frequent.” is not clear, please rephrase. Saying “existing threats are mainly attributed…” is wrong, as you are talking in general about any kind of threats, animal and non-animal related. Moreover, the following sentence sounds a bit extreme: maybe it is true, but does reference number 10 really says so? You should lower the tones, as extreme sentences are more susceptible of being rejected. Please write the full name of WHO the first time you cite it. At last, please rephrase the aim, as it is probably the most important sentence in the manuscript. Another “extreme” sentence is the one saying that ESBL is the most prominent resistance gene, solely based on a Chinese article. Maybe you should just say ESBL is very important or one of the most important.
Materials and Methods need to be revised thoroughly. First, you should avoid the colon in the first sentence, and you should add in brackets both the city and the state of the Dschang District Hospital. I suggest to change the distribution of sub-chapters: the first sentence of 2.1 might be good in 2.2, and the second sentence of 2.1 might be part of 2.3. For 2.2, the concept of "The number of hens randomly sampled per farm was function of the farm size (number of hens in the farm) using the proportionality principle." should be further implemented, for example by adding the formula used. In 2.3, first sentence needs to be split in two, and the first part needs to be further described by adding what was asked in the questionnaire, or at least add an image/table of the questionnaire (I would prefer it in the text). This part is crucial to understand results and to start a good discussion. “Stool samples” is used more in human medicine, change it with “faecal sample”. REMIC must be written full and cited in the references! Use “Antimicrobial susceptibility testing” instead of "antibiogram". Moreover, you should list the antimicrobial discs used, and their concentration. Eucast 2020 must be added to references. The champagne cork image test part should be further described. Use the following article as a helping tool: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC8418096/. At Last, what did you use ATCC strains for? Please describe more. About 2.4, correct SE-producing, add in brackets the city and state of the Epi-Info 7 software, and cancel “digestive”. Lastly, choose whether to leave 2.5 in Materials and Methods or move it at the end of the manuscript.
Results have some major issues, and should be revised thoroughly. But first, tables should be written in arabic numbers and not roman numbers. It is crucial that you just list your results in the “results” section, and make no comparison: those will be part of the discussion (Example: sentence “Table I shows that the intestinal carriage of SE was most prevalent in hens compared to breeders” is a comparison, and does not fit the results section. It must be written differently). 3.1: CI 95%. You never defined Confidence Intervals. What does “specie” stand for? Species? You should find a word that fits better the categories. Avoid ";". Numbers units don't need 0. List the different serotypes isolated. Serotypes must be in normal font, “S.enterica” in italics. "While only 03 serotypes..." care for words, "only" hear changes the meaning of the sentence, and it makes it much more of a discussion phrase.
3.2: still a lot of discussion. (more, less...) "It was noticed that hens’ and breeders’ isolates had closely related antimicrobial susceptibility profiles but breeders’ isolates showed a relatively high frequency of resistance to antimicrobials" fits more in a discussion. "All isolates collected from both hens and breeders were resistant to tetracycline; a high resistance prevalence was also observed to cefepim, cefoxitin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and cotrimoxazole." This sentence perfectly fits the results the way it is written. However, add for each antimicrobial the relative number/percentage. 3.3: only three sentences here, you should decide to improve it or make it part of a different paragraph. As a consequence, change table 3 as it is not clear now. Probably the biggest concerns are related to paragraph 3.4: without a proper introduction in Materials and Methods, table 4 cannot be understood.
Finally, the Discussion need a total revision and a better structure. Please distribute it in different paragraphs, with a logical organization of the topics. The main issue is probably the fact that you compared your data to just 3 studies until half of the discussion. You should search at least 5-10 more articles concerning salmonella and ESBL, in order to improve your discussion. Moreover, you should start the discussion with a couple of sentences that take back the issue. Maybe there are studies about ESBL closer to Cameroon than the chinese study you mentioned. Moreover, you should try to discuss studies with lower or higher prevalence than yours. The sentence “So the presence ... disseminator” is totally unclear: please rephrase. It is very important that you cite another study from Cameroon, but the sentence "These findings were also observed by Nzouankeu et al [3] in a study in Yaoundé Cameroon" doesn't add anything. What does this mean? There is no discussion about it. The following sentence has no strong base, maybe you should search an article where it is suspected that farmers are a source of a pathogen for the community.
Moreover, sentences like "...probably due to the fact that, as veterinary antimicrobials, they are misused in the poultry farms" and "This implies that, even though ceftiofur and nalidixic acid are not recommended in Cameroon, they are still abusively used in the poultry farms, unfortunately." have no support at all. There is no place in scientific literature for superficial assumptions. What does “auto-consumption of antimicrobials” means? Please explain. Sentence “Henceforth, more death cases will be registered with time if radical measures are not taken to prevent such phenomena.”: how do you know that? Is it Predictive analytics? At last, "So, in this challenge opposing humanity to bacteria capable of causing infectious diseases, humanity is being weakened by evil practices of the humans themselves; concluding that humans use their reign to fantastically kill themselves by giving weapons to their enemies, the resistant bacteria." must be rephrased.
Author Response
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Salmonella is a pathogen of considerable health concern, given its zoonotic potential, and is frequently linked to foodborne outbreaks. A greater concern is related to the antimicrobial resistance of some strains, which lead to therapeutic failure and death. In particular, ESBL strains are dangerous due to their resistance to many molecules, including cephalosporins. In my opinion, the research question of the manuscript is very important, especially for two main reasons, namely its One health meaning and the country involved (Cameroon). I think the data from this article might be useful for the veterinarians, farmers and competent authorities of Cameroon and other countries of the Gulf of Guinea.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, for the positive comments
However, the whole manuscript needs much more work before to be ready for a first peer revision.
First of all, there is a great issue with the manuscript format itself. As a matter of fact, you should have added line numbers in order to make the reviewing process easier. Without lines, It was quite difficult to point out and list errors. Another matter of great importance is English language: unfortunately, the whole manuscript needs a thorough revision in order to be fully understood and therefore reviewed. After these first two great barriers, I will start to try talking about the manuscript itself.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we added the line numbers
There are some more concerns before starting the single parts of the manuscript. First, you should always avoid sentences that are separated by a semicolon: It is much preferable to write shorter sentences. Moreover, when you write an acronym ALWAYS write the extended version the first time you use it. Furthermore, try not to write extreme sentences with utter truths, but rather express doubts.
Authors: We did it, thanks dear reviewer
There are some points about the title: for example, there should be an hypen between “lactamase” and “producing”. Moreover, maybe Dschang should be called a city rather than a town, and I would suggest a comma to replace “of”. A concern from the title and the whole manuscript is the word “breeder” which I would replace with “farmer”. As a matter of fact, the word “breeder” is less frequently used, and might lead to error, thinking about broiler breeders instead of human farmers. Again, if “hens” stand for “layers” I would suggest a change; if “hens” is used as a general “chicken”, it can be the word used.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
Concerning introduction, you should find a better definition for NTS. The 3rd sentence is not clear: did you mean that poultry is the most reported source for zoonosis? Moreover, maybe you should add a couple of examples of presence of ESBL in veterinary medicine around the world, preferably in Africa. The 11th sentence (3rd paragraph) “In Cameroon, existing threats are mainly attributed to the avian economy because the consumption of poultry products and the direct or indirect contact with hens’ faeces are frequent.” is not clear, please rephrase. Saying “existing threats are mainly attributed…” is wrong, as you are talking in general about any kind of threats, animal and non-animal related. Moreover, the following sentence sounds a bit extreme: maybe it is true, but does reference number 10 really says so? You should lower the tones, as extreme sentences are more susceptible of being rejected. Please write the full name of WHO the first time you cite it. At last, please rephrase the aim, as it is probably the most important sentence in the manuscript. Another “extreme” sentence is the one saying that ESBL is the most prominent resistance gene, solely based on a Chinese article. Maybe you should just say ESBL is very important or one of the most important.
Authors: We corrected as suggested, thanks
Materials and Methods need to be revised thoroughly. First, you should avoid the colon in the first sentence, and you should add in brackets both the city and the state of the Dschang District Hospital. I suggest to change the distribution of sub-chapters: the first sentence of 2.1 might be good in 2.2, and the second sentence of 2.1 might be part of 2.3. For 2.2, the concept of "The number of hens randomly sampled per farm was function of the farm size (number of hens in the farm) using the proportionality principle." should be further implemented, for example by adding the formula used. In 2.3, first sentence needs to be split in two, and the first part needs to be further described by adding what was asked in the questionnaire, or at least add an image/table of the questionnaire (I would prefer it in the text). This part is crucial to understand results and to start a good discussion. “Stool samples” is used more in human medicine, change it with “faecal sample”. REMIC must be written full and cited in the references! Use “Antimicrobial susceptibility testing” instead of "antibiogram". Moreover, you should list the antimicrobial discs used, and their concentration. Eucast 2020 must be added to references. The champagne cork image test part should be further described. Use the following article as a helping tool: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC8418096/. At Last, what did you use ATCC strains for? Please describe more. About 2.4, correct SE-producing, add in brackets the city and state of the Epi-Info 7 software, and cancel “digestive”. Lastly, choose whether to leave 2.5 in Materials and Methods or move it at the end of the manuscript.
Authors: We revised, thanks very much
Results have some major issues, and should be revised thoroughly. But first, tables should be written in arabic numbers and not roman numbers. It is crucial that you just list your results in the “results” section, and make no comparison: those will be part of the discussion (Example: sentence “Table I shows that the intestinal carriage of SE was most prevalent in hens compared to breeders” is a comparison, and does not fit the results section. It must be written differently). 3.1: CI 95%. You never defined Confidence Intervals. What does “specie” stand for? Species? You should find a word that fits better the categories. Avoid ";". Numbers units don't need 0. List the different serotypes isolated. Serotypes must be in normal font, “S.enterica” in italics. "While only 03 serotypes..." care for words, "only" hear changes the meaning of the sentence, and it makes it much more of a discussion phrase.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected as suggested
3.2: still a lot of discussion. (more, less...) "It was noticed that hens’ and breeders’ isolates had closely related antimicrobial susceptibility profiles but breeders’ isolates showed a relatively high frequency of resistance to antimicrobials" fits more in a discussion. "All isolates collected from both hens and breeders were resistant to tetracycline; a high resistance prevalence was also observed to cefepim, cefoxitin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and cotrimoxazole." This sentence perfectly fits the results the way it is written. However, add for each antimicrobial the relative number/percentage. 3.3: only three sentences here, you should decide to improve it or make it part of a different paragraph. As a consequence, change table 3 as it is not clear now. Probably the biggest concerns are related to paragraph 3.4: without a proper introduction in Materials and Methods, table 4 cannot be understood.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
Finally, the Discussion need a total revision and a better structure. Please distribute it in different paragraphs, with a logical organization of the topics. The main issue is probably the fact that you compared your data to just 3 studies until half of the discussion. You should search at least 5-10 more articles concerning salmonella and ESBL, in order to improve your discussion. Moreover, you should start the discussion with a couple of sentences that take back the issue. Maybe there are studies about ESBL closer to Cameroon than the chinese study you mentioned. Moreover, you should try to discuss studies with lower or higher prevalence than yours. The sentence “So the presence ... disseminator” is totally unclear: please rephrase. It is very important that you cite another study from Cameroon, but the sentence "These findings were also observed by Nzouankeu et al [3] in a study in Yaoundé Cameroon" doesn't add anything. What does this mean? There is no discussion about it. The following sentence has no strong base, maybe you should search an article where it is suspected that farmers are a source of a pathogen for the community.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
Moreover, sentences like "...probably due to the fact that, as veterinary antimicrobials, they are misused in the poultry farms" and "This implies that, even though ceftiofur and nalidixic acid are not recommended in Cameroon, they are still abusively used in the poultry farms, unfortunately." have no support at all. There is no place in scientific literature for superficial assumptions. What does “auto-consumption of antimicrobials” means? Please explain. Sentence “Henceforth, more death cases will be registered with time if radical measures are not taken to prevent such phenomena.”: how do you know that? Is it Predictive analytics? At last, "So, in this challenge opposing humanity to bacteria capable of causing infectious diseases, humanity is being weakened by evil practices of the humans themselves; concluding that humans use their reign to fantastically kill themselves by giving weapons to their enemies, the resistant bacteria." must be rephrased.
Authors: Thanks for the comments dear reviewer, we corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Intestinal carriage of extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Salmonella enterica from hens and poultry breeders in poultry farms in Dschang town of Cameroon" publishes the results of a study on the carriage of resistant forms of salmonella in chickens and breeders. The research has an applied nature, is relevant and of scientific interest. The text is written correctly, the narrative is consistent, the conclusions are confirmed by the results. It is proposed to accept the article after minor changes.
1) Chapter 3.2. Before Table 2, insert an empty line.
2) It is desirable to place Table 2 on one page. You need to sign the text designations with color.
3) Before Chapter 2, the indentation value has changed.
4) Chapter 3.1. Before Table 1, insert an empty line.
5) Before table 5, you need to insert an empty line.
6) Chapter 4. Salmonella is written with a capital letter if it is a Latin name.
Author Response
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled "Intestinal carriage of extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Salmonella enterica from hens and poultry breeders in poultry farms in Dschang town of Cameroon" publishes the results of a study on the carriage of resistant forms of salmonella in chickens and breeders. The research has an applied nature, is relevant and of scientific interest. The text is written correctly, the narrative is consistent, the conclusions are confirmed by the results. It is proposed to accept the article after minor changes.
- Chapter 3.2. Before Table 2, insert an empty line.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we inserted
- It is desirable to place Table 2 on one page. You need to sign the text designations with color.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we did it
- Before Chapter 2, the indentation value has changed.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we revised
- Chapter 3.1. Before Table 1, insert an empty line.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we inserted
- Before table 5, you need to insert an empty line.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we did it
- Chapter 4. Salmonella is written with a capital letter if it is a Latin name.
Authors: We corrected, thanks dear reviewer
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the manuscript was thoroughly improved: as a matter of fact, it took me much less time to read through it and understand its meaning and importance. I enjoyed most of the text, especially the revised materials and methods.
There are still some in-text errors (e.g.: misplaced commas, reference format, color use in figures and tables) that I will leave to the Editor, who will do the last revision.
I think both the title and the abstract are more clear now. I suggested to change "town" with "city" because I saw that Dschang has almost 80 thousands inhabitants. Despite that, the meaning of "town" and "city" vary between languages and countries, so feel free to use the one you prefer. Just one tip for the abstract: I think you should change "ignorance" with "lack of knowledge" here, but leave it in the rest of the manuscript.
Introduction was thoroughly improved: I also speak a language were very long sentences are used, but usually scientific reports are written differently. Thus, I think that now the text is easier to be read.
Some tips:
line 2: write (NTS)
Line 8-11: The two sentences sound repetitive.
Line 39-43: I would simplify/lighten the sentence. Up to you.
"Materials and Methods" is the most improved part of the manuscript. Adding the interview helps to understand the results at 3.4 and table 5. A couple of matters:
Line 67: sorry for my incorrect suggestion about "stool samples". As a matter of fact, it was a fine word for the sentence: unfortunately, I got distracted by the former word "breeder". Although, also "faecal samples" is fine.
Table 1: What do you mean by "charge"? "concentration"?
Results were also improved. The only tip is the following.
Line 105-106: 05 and 06, change with 5 and 6.
Conclusions are much better now.
Discussion was also upgraded. Despite that, I believe this is the only part that still needs improvement, and the reason why I chose "minor revisions".
As a matter of fact, the discussion still need some more comparison with other studies with similar or different results than yours. At the end of my report*, I listed some works you should read and use for the discussion: the ones from 1 to 7 are a must-see, and I believe will improve your discussion.
Moreover, the following are some needed changes:
Line 154-155: There is something off with the two sentences. Probably it is related to some corrections you made. I suggest to cancel "which" and leave the sentences separated.
Line 175-177: the sentence now is clear, but I think it should be rephrased to improve english language.
Line 229: living socks?
Line 235-237: Same as Line 175-177
Line 238-248: I believe this is the most interesting part of the manuscript. Its language might be further improved.
*Interesting references to be used:
1) Occurrence of Extended Spectrum Beta – Lactamases and Sul 1 in multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from poultry feeds
2) Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes in chickens from retail markets in Yaounde (Cameroon)
3) Abusive use of antibiotics in poultry farming in Cameroon and the public health implications
4) Salmonella status of table eggs in commercial layer farms in Menoua Division, West region of Cameroon
5) Risk factors of Salmonella infection in laying hens in Menoua Division, Western region of Cameroon (Central Africa)
6) Microbial contamination of chicken litter manure and antimicrobial resistance threat in an urban area setting in Cameroon
7) Perceptions and practices of farmers of indigenous poultry towards Salmonella infections in North-Central Nigeria
8) Antimicrobial resistance and genetic characterisation of Salmonella enterica from retail poultry meats in Benin City, Nigeria
9) Risk Factors for Persistent Infection of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella in Poultry Farms, North Central Nigeria
10) Antibiotic Resistance of Bacterial Isolates from Smallholder Poultry Droppings in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria
11) Detection of extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–production in Salmonella Typhimurium isolated from poultry birds in Nasarawa State, Nigeria
12) Antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes in Salmonella enterica serovars isolated from droppings of layer chicken in two farms in Nigeria
13) Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella species from poultry farms in Ibadan, Nigeria
14) Association between antimicrobial usage and resistance in Salmonella from poultry farms in Nigeria
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
the manuscript was thoroughly improved: as a matter of fact, it took me much less time to read through it and understand its meaning and importance. I enjoyed most of the text, especially the revised materials and methods.
There are still some in-text errors (e.g.: misplaced commas, reference format, color use in figures and tables) that I will leave to the Editor, who will do the last revision.
I think both the title and the abstract are more clear now. I suggested to change "town" with "city" because I saw that Dschang has almost 80 thousands inhabitants. Despite that, the meaning of "town" and "city" vary between languages and countries, so feel free to use the one you prefer. Just one tip for the abstract: I think you should change "ignorance" with "lack of knowledge" here, but leave it in the rest of the manuscript.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we changed
Introduction was thoroughly improved: I also speak a language were very long sentences are used, but usually scientific reports are written differently. Thus, I think that now the text is easier to be read.
Some tips:
line 2: write (NTS)
Line 8-11: The two sentences sound repetitive.
Line 39-43: I would simplify/lighten the sentence. Up to you.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
"Materials and Methods" is the most improved part of the manuscript. Adding the interview helps to understand the results at 3.4 and table 5. A couple of matters:
Line 67: sorry for my incorrect suggestion about "stool samples". As a matter of fact, it was a fine word for the sentence: unfortunately, I got distracted by the former word "breeder". Although, also "faecal samples" is fine.
Table 1: What do you mean by "charge"? "concentration"?
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, noted with thanks. Yes, we thought that charge fits better because it describes the antibiotic mass (usually well adapted for solutes) instead of concentration (usually well adapted for solutions).
Results were also improved. The only tip is the following.
Line 105-106: 05 and 06, change with 5 and 6.
Authors: We changed, thanks dear reviewer
Conclusions are much better now.
Authors: Thanks for your comment dear reviewer
Discussion was also upgraded. Despite that, I believe this is the only part that still needs improvement, and the reason why I chose "minor revisions".
As a matter of fact, the discussion still need some more comparison with other studies with similar or different results than yours. At the end of my report*, I listed some works you should read and use for the discussion: the ones from 1 to 7 are a must-see, and I believe will improve your discussion.
Moreover, the following are some needed changes:
Line 154-155: There is something off with the two sentences. Probably it is related to some corrections you made. I suggest to cancel "which" and leave the sentences separated.
Line 175-177: the sentence now is clear, but I think it should be rephrased to improve english language.
Line 229: living socks?
Line 235-237: Same as Line 175-177
Line 238-248: I believe this is the most interesting part of the manuscript. Its language might be further improved.
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, we corrected
*Interesting references to be used:
1) Occurrence of Extended Spectrum Beta – Lactamases and Sul 1 in multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from poultry feeds
2) Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes in chickens from retail markets in Yaounde (Cameroon)
3) Abusive use of antibiotics in poultry farming in Cameroon and the public health implications
4) Salmonella status of table eggs in commercial layer farms in Menoua Division, West region of Cameroon
5) Risk factors of Salmonella infection in laying hens in Menoua Division, Western region of Cameroon (Central Africa)
6) Microbial contamination of chicken litter manure and antimicrobial resistance threat in an urban area setting in Cameroon
7) Perceptions and practices of farmers of indigenous poultry towards Salmonella infections in North-Central Nigeria
8) Antimicrobial resistance and genetic characterisation of Salmonella enterica from retail poultry meats in Benin City, Nigeria
9) Risk Factors for Persistent Infection of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella in Poultry Farms, North Central Nigeria
10) Antibiotic Resistance of Bacterial Isolates from Smallholder Poultry Droppings in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria
11) Detection of extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–production in Salmonella Typhimurium isolated from poultry birds in Nasarawa State, Nigeria
12) Antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes in Salmonella enterica serovars isolated from droppings of layer chicken in two farms in Nigeria
13) Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella species from poultry farms in Ibadan, Nigeria
14) Association between antimicrobial usage and resistance in Salmonella from poultry farms in Nigeria
Authors: Thanks dear reviewer, As suggested, some of these references have been added.
