[如何審稿】雜志審稿模板總結(jié)學(xué)習(xí)20220610-2

菜鳥博士Caesar

Title:

Chemical composition, antioxidant and hepatoprotective activities of methanol extracts from leaves of Terminalia bellirica and Terminalia sericea (Combretaceae)

ABSTRACT

Background: Plants belonging to the genus Terminalia such as Terminalia bellirica and Terminalia sericea are used traditionally to treat several diseases and health disorders. Up to this date, the roots of Terminalia sericea and the fruits of Terminalia bellirica are the mostly studied plant parts. The phytochemical composition and the biological activities of the leaves of both species are not well identified so far.Methods: The secondary metabolites of Terminalia bellirica and Terminalia sericea leaves were identified using HPLC-PDA-MS/MS. The antioxidant activities of the leaves extracts were determined by DPPH and FRAP assays. The hepatoprotective potential was evaluated in rats with D-galactosamine induced liver damage. The effect of the extracts on the expression of the anti-apoptotic marker Bcl-2 was measured in an immunohistochemical study. The most abundant compounds identified in the studied extracts were docked into Bcl-2: Bim (BH3) interaction surface using molecular operating environment software.Results: A total of 85 secondary metabolites were identified in the leaf extracts of both species. Ellagitannins such as corilagin, chebulagic acid, galloylpunicalagin, and digalloyl-hexahydroxydiphenoyl-hexoside were found to be the major components in Terminalia bellirica whereas flavonoid glycosides including quercetin rutinoside and quercetin galloyl-glucoside were highly abundant in Terminalia sericea. The studied extracts exhibited pronounced antioxidant activities, moderate anti-apoptotic and hepatoprotective potential. In silico docking experiments revealed that the compounds abundant in the extracts were able to bind to Bcl-2: Bim (BH3) interaction surface with an appreciable binding free energy.Discussion: The antioxidant and hepatoprotective activities exhibited by the studied extracts might be attributed to the high content of the polyphenols. The anti-apoptotic activity could be due to the interference with the apoptotic pathway mediated by Bcl-2: Bim interaction. These findings support the medicinal relevance of Terminalia bellirica and Terminalia sericea and provide a rational base for their utilization in folk medicine.

Review 1:

The manuscript "Chemical composition, antioxidant and hepatoprotective activities of methanol extracts from leaves of Terminalia bellirica and Terminalia sericea " presented a nicely designed and well executed study in improving pattern recognition based to increase the oxidative stability.
Overall, this manuscript is fine and satisfactory and the paper seems good for publication, the aim of this study is clear, the study results are clear. While the topic of the manuscript is of key importance for the current development of the relevant literature the oxidative stability, the following issues need to be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication:
Comments on abstract, title and references
Basic reporting the presented paper is written on clear and understandable language. The title is relevant, Abstract, a rewriting is suggested for an easier appreciation of the work done. The references are relevant, recent and they were cited correctly and appropriate key studies are included. In this reviewer's view, it proposed a simple, but very elegant and efficient approach in feature extraction. The format of the references (some of them at least) is not consistent the journal style. The authors should check these inconsistencies after the reference list is generated by automated tools. The used references are up to date.
Comments on introduction/background
The introduction is adequate, well focused on the aim of the research. The topic is clear and already known, the research question is clearly. The research question is given what is already known about the topic. Writing style within the guidelines. Also, the Introduction is a bit too long. Author is advised to clearly mention the rationale behind this study and purpose of this research work in Introduction. MOTIVATE THE AUDIENCE TO LISTEN by pointing out how your topic will benefit them. Good introduction provides the reader with a brief overview of your topic thinking at hand and wondering how you will be proving your argument.
Comments on methodology
Experimental design the topic of the study is well defined and would be of interest to the readers. Comments for the Author The most important issues are listed below: L. 96 - please specify the weight of leaves and the conditions of drying (temperature, time, inert gases atmosphere, etc). Why did you use 100% methanol instead of water/methanol mixture? Do you think this extraction procedure was precise enough to extract all types of polyphenols presented in the samples? L. 108 – please describe how the extract was prepared, since you mentioned that you have obtained “fine dried powder”. L. 100-112 – the section “HPLC-PDA-MS/MS” is incomplete. Please provide information how the investigated analyses were identified? Did you quantified the identified compounds, and if not why? L. 114-116 – please provide more descriptive information here L. 120 – how old were the rats? L. 132-140 Why didn’t you inject D-GalN in groups 3-7 at the beginning of the experiment as you did with the control and D-GalN groups? In this case do you think that the control liver failure groups are correctly defined?
Comments on data and results
The data presented in an appropriate way, Tables are clearly presented, appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals were good. Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly. The text repeat the all information of tables. The statistical treatment was not clear. There should be a sub-section in the Methods section, detailing the statistical tests used. The test type, hypothesis, factors, levels of factors, and response variables, etc. A statistical significant difference is indicated by a symbol (as a star) directly on the figure and p value(s) indicated in the legend. A practically meaningful result the findings of this research work significantly advance the current knowledge in the field.
Comments on discussion and conclusions
I find the results of this paper to be straight forward and expected. Author embellished in next section of Results and Discussion. Author is advised to remove all unnecessary information and provide succinct statements about the key findings of this study in a short and snappy way. Moreover, if possible, provide figures in high resolution for more clearance In this article the discussion is combined with the results in one section. The results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over interpreted. The conclusions have answered the aims of the study. The conclusions were supported by references or results. The limitations of the study weren’t fatal. It gives opportunities to inform future research. The authors should carefully discuss the differences and advantage/disadvantage of the proposed method with this recently published method Tables are well organized and the figures are readable Validity of the findings However, the presented manuscript suffers from some serious weaknesses in methodology which could compromise the conclusions, made by the authors. How long were rats grown after injection with D-GalN before to be sacrificed? L. 150-155 - please provide more descriptive information here. I cannot be sure for the accuracy of described analyses when I have no basic information for the used equipment and chemicals reagents. L. 162 – please provide details for the used microscope. L. 166 – you cannot “rehydrate” tissue with ethanol, rather you will dry it. L. 179 – how many replicates? L. 197-231 – all this information can be found in Table 1. It is not necessary to describe it here. L. 237 - Table 2, For DPPH radical scavenging assay It should be IC50 (inhibitory concentration) not EC50 (efficient concentration). Here I would like also to see the used concentrations and the corresponding coefficients of determinations obtained for calculated IC50 values. Why the results for DPPH analyses are presented as “μg/mL” (this is completely useless since we do not know the concentration of the used extract), the results for FRAP assay were in “mM FeSO4/mg extract”, and the results for folin were per gram extract? This made the presented data completely incomparable and useless Also, many specific studies and methods on pattern recognition reported in the last 2-3 decades are thoroughly reviewed. The author could just cite this review and avoid going into much details

Review 2

Basic reporting The presented paper is written on clear and understandable language. The introduction is adequate, well focused on the aim of the research. The used references are up to date. Tables are well organized and the figures are readable. Experimental design The topic of the study is well defined and would be of interest to the readers. Validity of the findings However, the presented manuscript suffers from some serious weaknesses in methodology which could compromise the conclusions, made by the authors. Comments for the Author The most important issues are listed below: L. 96 - please specify the weight of leaves and the conditions of drying (temperature, time, inert gases atmosphere, etc.). Why did you use 100% methanol instead of water/methanol mixture? Do you think this extraction procedure was precise enough to extract all types of polyphenols presented in the samples? L. 108 – please describe how the extract was prepared, since you mentioned that you have obtained “fine dried powder”. L. 100-112 – the section “HPLC-PDA-MS/MS” is incomplete. Please provide information how the investigated analytes were identified? Did you quantified the identified compounds, and if not why? L. 114-116 – please provide more descriptive information here. L. 120 – how old were the rats? L. 132-140 – Why didn’t you inject D-GalN in groups 3-7 at the beginning of the experiment as you did with the control and D-GalN groups? In this case do you think that the control liver failure groups are correctly defined? How long were rats grown after injection with D-GalN before to be sacrificed? L. 150-155 - please provide more descriptive information here. I cannot be sure for the accuracy of described analyses when I have no basic information for the used equipment and chemicals reagents. L. 162 – please provide details for the used microscope. L. 166 – you cannot “rehydrate” tissue with ethanol, rather you will dry it. L. 179 – how many replicates? L. 197-231 – all this information can be found in Table 1. It is not necessary to describe it here. L. 237 - Table 2, For DPPH radical scavenging assay It should be IC50 (inhibitory concentration) not EC50 (efficient concentration). Here I would like also to see the used concentrations and the corresponding coefficients of determinations obtained for calculated IC50 values. Why the results for DPPH analyses are presented as “μg/mL” (this is completely useless since we do not know the concentration of the used extract), the results for FRAP assay were in “mM FeSO4/mg extract”, and the results for Folin were per gram extract? This made the presented data completely incomparable and useless.