Next Article in Journal
Wheat Germ Spermidine and Clove Eugenol in Combination Stimulate Autophagy In Vitro Showing Potential in Supporting the Immune System against Viral Infections
Next Article in Special Issue
Target-Guided Isolation of Progenitors of 1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) from Riesling Wine by High-Performance Countercurrent Chromatography
Previous Article in Journal
The Antioxidant and Hypolipidemic Effects of Mesona Chinensis Benth Extracts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bioassay-Guided Fractionation of Siparuna glycycarpa n-Butanol Extract with Inhibitory Activity against Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 Virus by Centrifugal Partition Chromatography (CPC)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Separation of Dihydro-Isocoumarins and Dihydro-Stilbenoids from Hydrangea macrophylla ssp. serrata by Use of Counter-Current Chromatography

Molecules 2022, 27(11), 3424; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113424
by Johannes Wellmann 1,*, Beate Hartmann 2, Esther-Corinna Schwarze 2, Silke Hillebrand 2, Stephan I. Brueckner 2, Jakob Ley 2, Gerold Jerz 1 and Peter Winterhalter 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Molecules 2022, 27(11), 3424; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113424
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 23 May 2022 / Accepted: 24 May 2022 / Published: 26 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research provides new ideas and data for further related studies. But the discussion can be improved.

Line 97. Would methanol extraction result in a low extracting rate of polar compounds? Or say, would it be better to extract using methanol-water solvent? Also, Line 91-115 read like 'material and method' instead of 'result and discussion.

Line 116. section 2.1. Although the results have been presented, it is a lack of citations and comparison with other published references for a more professional, comprehensive, and better discussion. 

Line 153. Figure 2 can be improved to avoid a washout look. The border should be deleted, the data line should be black, a gray line can be deleted, a black y-axis trick should be added, etc.

Line 188. It would be better to provide a table listing all critical mass fragments in the supplementary materials.

Line 269. should be a new paragraph.

Line 333. Please provide the height and diameter of the resin column and the loading, eluting speed in resin bed volume (BV) per hour.

Line 460. using first-person is fine, but it would be better not too much for academic writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the presented manuscript, the authors clearly and in detail described the process of purification and isolation of the presented dihydro-isocoumarins and dihydro-stilbenoids using different chromatographic techniques. The presented results can be of great benefit to other researchers dealing with the chemistry of secondary metabolites and their purification processes.

There are a couple of typographical errors in the manuscript that need to be corrected. For example, in line 454. it says 1H-,13C-HSQC, 1H-,13C-HMBC and it should 1H-13C-HSQC, 1H-13C-HMBC.

I suggest authors to specify the isolated amounts of the individual components and provide NMR spectral for the newly isolated.

I highly recommend this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a continuation of previous studies in terms to determine dihydro-isocoumarins and dihydro-stilbenoids from plant samples. The interesting part is of course using CCC to identify metabolites using HP and HSCCC together with NMR and LC-MS. In general, manuscript is well planned and organized, I have only some minor comments listed below:

- I would suggest using past simple tense, instead of present perfect in some places, like line 123 – has been found -> was found

- high energy spectrum -> spectrum obtained at high energy

- l 192 similar fragmentation patter was observed on mass spectrum

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been greatly improved, and I can accept it in its current form.

Back to TopTop