Next Article in Journal
Identification of Potential Treatments for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia through Integrated Genomic Network Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Preclinical Studies and Drug Combination of Low-Cost Molecules for Chagas Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Protective Effects of Naringin–Dextrin Nanoformula against Chemically Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Wistar Rats: Roles of Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, Cell Apoptosis, and Proliferation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Over 40 Years of Fosmidomycin Drug Research: A Comprehensive Review and Future Opportunities
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Human Lung Cancer (A549) Cell Line Cytotoxicity and Anti-Leishmania major Activity of Carissa macrocarpa Leaves: A Study Supported by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS Metabolites Profiling and Molecular Docking

Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15(12), 1561; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15121561
by Mohamed A. A. Orabi 1,*, Omaish Salman Alqahtani 1, Bandar A. Alyami 2, Ahmed Abdullah Al Awadh 3, El-Shaymaa Abdel-Sattar 4, Katsuyoshi Matsunami 5, Dalia I. Hamdan 6 and Mohamed E. Abouelela 7
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15(12), 1561; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15121561
Submission received: 30 October 2022 / Revised: 10 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 14 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- As authors used lung cell line just for evaluation of cytotoxicity and there is not any other evidence against Lung adenocarcinoma, I don't think so there is enough data regarding this disease to be in the title!

2- Why authors didn't use stibogluconate against L. major promastigotes to compare with test?

3- What does nil mean in the table 3? It needs explanation under the table.

4- Authors need to show the cytotoxicity against normal mammalian cells as well to show the plant derivatives are safe enough if they used lung cell line as a cancer model. 

 

 

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer comments are shown in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work has been well designed, from my point of view it is well written with very few points to correct.

For example, in line 61 you should indicate what SAR means, in table 3 what hil means? and in the bibliography lines 574 and 577 should be checked for the abbreviations of the journals

 

I consider the work adequate to be published in Pharmaceuticals but I should make these corrections first

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer comments are shown in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop