Production of Therapeutically Significant Genistein and Daidzein Compounds from Soybean Glycosides Using Magnetic Nanocatalyst: A Novel Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript describes using a magnetic nanocatalyst approach on soy beans to synthesize genistein and daidzein compounds that could have a therapeutic effect.

At first glimpse, i guess the manuscript wasn't prepared for being published in an mdpi journal but rather an Elsevier journal. So, i advise the authors to revise their manuscript accordingly.

The introduction and experimental sections were thoroughly written however the results and discussion section needs to be separated to help the reader understanding the significance of the results and extent the discussion beyond describing the characterization routes.

 

Author Response

This manuscript describes using a magnetic nanocatalyst approach on soy beans to synthesize genistein and daidzein compounds that could have a therapeutic effect. At first glimpse, I guess the manuscript wasn't prepared for being published in an mdpi journal but rather an Elsevier journal. So, I advise the authors to revise their manuscript accordingly.

Q1. The introduction and experimental sections were thoroughly written however the results and discussion section needs to be separated to help the reader understanding the significance of the results and extent the discussion beyond describing the characterization routes.

Answer: Thank you for your useful comments and recommendations. We have revised manuscript as per suggested by Reviewers. We have written the results and Discussion section together considering the format of the Journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Title:   Production of therapeutically significant genistein and daidzein compounds from soybean glycosides using magnetic nanocatalyst: a novel approach

Article type:    Research article

 

Dear Editor,

In the present manuscript, Singhvi and colleague reported the preparation of cid-functionalized CoFe2O4-Si-ASA magnetic nanocatalyst for removing glucoside to yield glycones: daidzein and genistein. 

I think that this work is well-documented and can be accepted for publication. However, I have some minor comments to you for to improve the quality of the work.

 

Highlight

·      L13: Please indicate the maximum yields.

Abstract

·      L19: It would be better to use glycosides or glycosidic form of daidzein and genistein.

·      L24: It seems not appropriate to use the term “ambient” for 80 °C.

Author Response

Q1. In the present manuscript, Singhvi and colleague reported the preparation of cid-functionalized CoFe2O4-Si-ASA magnetic nanocatalyst for removing glucoside to yield glycones: daidzein and genistein. I think that this work is well-documented and can be accepted for publication. However, I have some minor comments to you for to improve the quality of the work.

Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments.

Q2. Highlight section,   L13: Please indicate the maximum yields.

Answer:  As per Reviewer’s suggestion, we have mentioned the maximum yields in highlight section.

Q3. L19: It would be better to use glycosides or glycosidic form of daidzein and genistein.

Answer: We have used the term, glycosides as per suggested.

Q4. L24: It seems not appropriate to use the term “ambient” for 80 °C.

Answer: We have modified the term throughout the manuscript and removed ‘ambient’ term for 80 ^oC.

Reviewer 3 Report

Very nice and interesting work dealing with the production of two not so commonly studied, yet important drugs.

However, the paper is very hard to read, as authors decided to separate the figures from the respective captions and from the main text. MDPI journals encourage authors to provide the paper in a template and with figures embebed in the text, which facilitates reading and refereeing.

Some minor English faults need to be addressed. For example, all over the text, authors confuse singular and plural (I understand this comes from the Asian languages in which nouns have no singular or plural). When authors say, for example, in Highlights "was attempted using nanocatalyst", if it is a single nanocatalyst then it should be "was attempted using a nanocatalyst". If there is more than one nanocatalysts, then it should be ""was attempted using nanocatalysts". All over the text, the same confusion exists. So please check if it you are referring to a (single) nanocatalyst or (more than one) nanocatalysts.

Moreover, authors should specifically stress in the Introducgtion what is the novelty of the paper. What is being reported here for the first time? This needs to be clear.

Concerning characterisation, authors have no means to also measure BET surface areas, XPS or XRD of the materials? The characterisation is not so complete.

In order to better evaluate the reported magnetic nanoparticles, I would like to see a comparison with some other catalysts from literature for the synthesis of genistein and dai-2 dzein compounds, if possible. This would also improve the discussion greatly.

 

Author Response

Q1. Very nice and interesting work dealing with the production of two not so commonly studied, yet important drugs. However, the paper is very hard to read, as authors decided to separate the figures from the respective captions and from the main text. MDPI journals encourage authors to provide the paper in a template and with figures embebed in the text, which facilitates reading and refereeing.

Answer: We thank reviewer for the suggestion. Previously the manuscript was not arranged as per the Journal format and hence figures and captions were separated. Now, it has been arranged as per the template form and figures have been embedded in the text.

Q2. Some minor English faults need to be addressed. For example, all over the text, authors confuse singular and plural (I understand this comes from the Asian languages in which nouns have no singular or plural). When authors say, for example, in Highlights "was attempted using nanocatalyst", if it is a single nanocatalyst then it should be "was attempted using a nanocatalyst". If there is more than one nanocatalysts, then it should be ""was attempted using nanocatalysts". All over the text, the same confusion exists. So please check if it you are referring to a (single) nanocatalyst or (more than one) nanocatalysts.

Answer: Thank you so much for important correction. We have now modified it as ‘ nanocatalyst’ throughout the revised manuscript.

Q3. Moreover, authors should specifically stress in the Introduction what is the novelty of the paper. What is being reported here for the first time? This needs to be clear.

Answer: We have included the information about the novelty of the present study in the introduction and highlighted in Yellow color in the revised MS.

Q4. Concerning characterisation, authors have no means to also measure BET surface areas, XPS or XRD of the materials? The characterization is not so complete.

Answer: We have provided the data bout XRD characterization of nanocatalyst in the supplementary section and discussed the results in the revised MS.

Q5. In order to better evaluate the reported magnetic nanoparticles, I would like to see a comparison with some other catalysts from literature for the synthesis of genistein and dai-2 dzein compounds, if possible. This would also improve the discussion greatly.

Answer: We would also like to compare our results with the reported ones. However, there is not a single study reported using this kind of approach for the production of genistein and diadzein. This is the first study on the production of genistein and daidzein using nanocatalyst instead of microbial enzymes. Hence, we could not discuss the comparative studies on this topic.