Upon a thorough review of the article, several errors, inconsistencies, and methodological concerns were identified, raising doubts regarding the reliability and validity of the findings. Below are the key observations:
Questionable Physiological Results:
The claim that the isolate can grow at pH 1 is biologically implausible for Aeromonas spp., which are generally neutrophilic. A growth curve (Fig. 6C) is presented in support of this claim; however, contamination with acid-tolerant microorganisms, measurement artifacts, or calibration errors might explain this result. Did the authors monitor pH changes over time during bacterial growth to rule out these possibilities?
Antibiotic Susceptibility Discrepancies:
The reported resistance profile for ampicillin contradicts established findings for Aeromonas sobria strains. Additionally, the methodology does not specify adherence to CLSI guidelines for fish pathogens. Notably, the recommended protocol involves adjusting the bacterial suspension to a 0.5 McFarland standard, corresponding to approximately 1 × 10⁸ CFU/mL. The authors, however, used a suspension of only 1 × 10⁵ CFU/mL, which raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the reported susceptibility results, as non-standard practices may yield inconsistent data. Moreover, no references has been cited for their antimicrobial susceptibility test.
This study exhibits several methodological flaws and errors that significantly undermine the validity of its conclusions. missing key methodological references and unsubstantiated claims regarding growth characteristics highlight the need for more rigorous peer review and potentially a re-evaluation of the findings before this work can be considered a reliable reference for future research.