Title: Alphacoronavirus in urban Molossidae and Phyllostomidae bats, Brazil. Asano et al. present a study on the detection of alphacoronavirus in urban Molossidae and Phyllostomidae bats, in Brazil. From 305 enteric contents of 29 bats species, nine specimens are positive in a CoV specific RT-PCR targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. From the nine positive-CoV specimens, 8 sequences were obtained. Phylogenic analyses showed that sequences obtained from Molossidae are clustered and those obtained from Phyllostomidae are grouped in another cluster. The manuscript is well written and structured, however, I should appreciate the authors would take the following major comments into account for further improvement of the manuscript. Method Section Line 59. To clarify the text for readers, could the authors precise what is “enteric content”? Could the authors precise how the feces are collected and for what period of 2013 and 2014? Results and Discussion Section The authors show that prevalence of alphaCoV among Cynomops bat species is estimated at 60% in C. abrasus subspecies and 27.3% in C. planirostris subspecies. Could the authors discuss these data regarding the prevalence of Cov and especially alpha-CoV previously described in other countries of the same subcontinent than Brazil? Here, phylogenetic trees shown that sequences obtained from Molossidae bat species are closely related to other CoV obtained from other brazilian bats (KC 110782 and KC110781) with high bootstraps values. Similar results are obtained for sequences from Phyllostomidae. Recent study published by Goffard et al. suggest that bat alphaCoV are geographically related. Could the authors discuss the geographical relation of bat sequences?

I suggest to the authors to precise the bootstraps values obtained in phylogenetic analyses in the text of result section. These data are important to reinforce the results presented.