Evaluation of Biofilm Production and Antifungal Susceptibility to Fluconazole in Clinical Isolates of Candida spp. in Both Planktonic and Biofilm Form
, Giulia Gatti 3, Maria Sofia Montanari 1, Michela Fantini 4, Claudia Colosimo 2, Maria Vittoria Tamburini 1, Valentina Arfilli 1, Manuela Morotti 1, Pasqualina Schiavone 1, Francesco Congestrì 1, Martina Manera 1, Agnese Denicolò 1, Martina Brandolini 2, Francesca Taddei 1, Laura Grumiro 1, Silvia Zannoli 1, Giorgio Dirani 1, Alessandra Mistral De Pascali 2, Vittorio Sambri 1,2 and Monica Cricca 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,here are my questions:
1.According to what did you choose the tested concentrations of fluconazole?
2. Why did you choose and test only fluconazole? There is plenty of antimycotics,you mentioned som of them in the introduction.
3. In discussion,there is lack of references,which compare your results with previous findings.
Discssion should more compare.
4. Did you find some important differences between your data and previous data,like changes in PIMC,MBEC? These changes can show us possible mutations in strains to addapt on host organisms.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors evaluate the biofilm formation ability of 83 strains of Candida and their sensitivity to fluconazole.
The overall writing of this manuscript is flawed, and some results are presented repeat in the Table and Fig. In addition, Some important information are missing, such as the MICs of each strains and how to determine the increase of resistance. What’s the objectives of this study? Some sentences are very difficult to understand.
Minor issues:
The quality of Figs are poor, and the results of Statistical analysis are not presented in Figs or Tables; ;
Line 4, forms. to form
Line 76-87, suggested the two paragraphs merged into one paragraph;
Line 120, read-er to reader;
Line 122, also with using, delete “with”;
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no more comments on this revised manuscript.
