Chemical Composition, Antibacterial, Enzyme-Inhibitory, and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Essential Oil from Hedychium puerense Rhizome
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It was my pleasure to review the manuscript written by Hong et al. Well designed and described study.
Some comments on the manuscript are given below.
Title of the manuscript is too long in my opinion. Could author consider to omit “chemical composition” and move this to “key words”?
Abstract – please provide the full name for DIZ.
Introduction – 2rd and third paragraph contain the similar information and can be merged to avoid repetitions. Author could stress the general findings on antimicrobial or anti-inflammatory effects of EOs as an example.
Material and Methods
Line 105-107. Could an explanation for the positive and negative controls to be added?
Results:
Please provide the title for Figure 1.
Line 205-209. This information has been already provided in the M and M section.
Line 209-215. Not clear enough. I propose to separate results of DIZ, MIC and MBC. Do not rewrite the content of the table, instead provide the main results.
Could author compare results of antimicrobial activity detected with different methods?
Have the authors identified any differences in antimicrobial effect of H. puerense on gram-negative and gram-positive microorganisms?
Line 249-250. Move the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, line 241.
The same for next paragraph - please start with the main finding.
Table 3. Do not leave the blank space in the content of the table.
Figure 2. p<0.05. Do the authors mean the differences between the control and experimental groups?
The same for Figure 3. Do the authors means the differences between the bars within the bar chart? Not clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thanks for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Chemical composition, antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory, and anti-inflammatory activities of essential oil from Hedychium puerense rhizome” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-1489697). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Comments to the Author
Comments:
It was my pleasure to review the manuscript written by Hong et al. Well designed and described study.
Reply: Thank you very much for the positive comments on our work.
Suggestion 1: “Title of the manuscript is too long in my opinion. Could author consider to omit “chemical composition” and move this to “key words”?”
Response: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the chemical composition of essential oil from Hedychium puerense rhizome. Therefore, we didn't omit “chemical composition” in the title of the manuscript. In addition, we have added the “chemical composition” in the “keywords”. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 2: “Abstract – please provide the full name for DIZ.”
Response: We have provided the full name for all the abbreviations in the abstract and have made revisions marked in red in the paper. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 3: “Introduction – 2rd and third paragraph contain the similar information and can be merged to avoid repetitions. Author could stress the general findings on antimicrobial or anti-inflammatory effects of EOs as an example.”
Response: In the introduction, we have revised the similar information in 2rd and third paragraphs. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 4: In the “Material and Methods”: “Line 105-107. Could an explanation for the positive and negative controls to be added?”
Response: In the “Material and Methods” (Lines 112-113), we have added the explanation for the positive and negative controls. The sentences “Streptomycin was used as a positive control. Ethyl acetate and distilled water were used as negative controls for EO and streptomycin, respectively.” have been added in the revised manuscript. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 5: In the results: “Please provide the title for Figure 1.”
Response: In the results (Line 203), we have added the title for Figure 1. The sentence “Figure 1. GC-MS chromatogram of H. puerense essential oil” has been added in the revised manuscript. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 6: In the results: “Line 205-209. This information has been already provided in the M and M section.”
Response: In the results, we have deleted this information “The antibacterial activity of EO was evaluated against gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains by measuring the diameter of inhibition zones (DIZ), the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC), and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) values. Streptomycin was used as the positive control.”. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 7: In the results: “Line 209-215. Not clear enough. I propose to separate results of DIZ, MIC and MBC. Do not rewrite the content of the table, instead provide the main results.”
Response: In the results (Lines 212-223), we have separated and rewrote the results of DIZ, MIC, and MBC. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Current replaced contents:
As shown in Table 2, the EO at the concentration of 100 mg/mL displayed broad-spectrum antibacterial property against both gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains with the diameter of inhibition zones (DIZ) values ranging from 7.44 to 10.30 mm. According to past studies, MIC values below 5 mg/mL are considered to possess strong antibacterial effects [30]. Therefore, the EO showed strong antibacterial property against Enterococcus faecalis (MIC = 3.13 mg/mL, MBC = 3.13 mg/mL), Bacillus subtilis (MIC = 3.13 mg/mL, MBC = 3.13 mg/mL), and Proteus vulgaris (MIC = 3.13 mg/mL, MBC = 6.25 mg/mL), as well as exhibited moderate antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus (MIC = 6.25 mg/mL, MBC = 12.50 mg/mL), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MIC = 6.25 mg/mL, MBC = 12.50 mg/mL), and Escherichia coli (MIC = 6.25 mg/mL, MBC = 12.50 mg/mL). When EO had a larger DIZ values, its MIC and MBC values became smaller, so the DIZ results of EO showed a correlation with the results of MIC and MBC.
Current added reference (Lines 432-434):
Monteiro, P. C.; Majolo, C.; Chaves, F.C.M.; Bizzo, H.R.; Almeida O’Sullivan, F.L.; Chagas, E.C. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils from Lippia sidoides, Ocimum gratissimum and Zingiber officinale against Aeromonas spp. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2021, 33, 152–161.
Suggestion 8: In the results: “Could author compare results of antimicrobial activity detected with different methods?”
Response: In the results (Lines 222-223), we have compared the results of antimicrobial activity detected with different methods. The sentences “When EO had a larger DIZ value, its MIC and MBC values became smaller, so the DIZ results of EO showed a correlation with the results of MIC and MBC.” have been added in the revised manuscript. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 9: In the results: “Have the authors identified any differences in antimicrobial effect of H. puerense on gram-negative and gram-positive microorganisms?”
Response: H. puerense EO displayed broad-spectrum antibacterial properties against both gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains. The EO didn't show significant difference in antimicrobial effects between gram-negative (DIZ: 7.44–10.30 mm, MIC: 3.13–6.25, MBC: 3.13–12.50 mg/mL) and gram-positive (DIZ: 7.73–10.16 mm, MIC: 3.13–6.25, MBC: 6.25–12.50 mg/mL) bacterial strains. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 10: In the results: “Line 249-250. Move the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, line 241.”
Response: In the results (Lines 249-250), we have moved the sentence “H. puerense EO showed moderate α-glucosidase inhibitory activity (IC50 = 5.42 ± 0.32 mg/mL).” to the beginning of the paragraph. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 11: In the results: “The same for next paragraph - please start with the main finding.”
Response: In the results (Lines 263-264 and 274-275), we have moved the sentences “As depicted in Table 3, H. puerense EO exhibited a moderate tyrosinase inhibitory activity (IC50 = 3.23 ± 0.21 mg/mL).” and “H. puerense EO showed significantly AChE and BChE inhibitory activity with the lower IC50 values of 0.94 ± 0.02 mg/mL and 1.32 ± 0.06 mg/mL, respectively.” to the beginning of the paragraph. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 12: “Table 3. Do not leave the blank space in the content of the table.”
Response: In table 3, we have added a horizontal line “–” in the blank space. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 13: “Figure 2. p<0.05. Do the authors mean the differences between the control and experimental groups?”
Response: In Figure 2, “*p<0.05 relative to control group.” has been replaced by “*p<0.05, cell viability of EO treatment group compared with untreated control group.”. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 14: “The same for Figure 3. Do the authors means the differences between the bars within the bar chart? Not clear.”
Response: In the Figure 3, “Different letters in the same column indicate a significant difference (p<0.05)” has been replaced by “The statistical difference between the different samples was shown in letters above bars, same letters above bars showed no statistical difference and different letters in the same above bars indicated a significant difference (p<0.05)”. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
We appreciate the reviewers’ earnest work and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Minyi Tian’ research group
[email protected] (Minyi Tian)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled "Chemical composition, antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory, and anti-inflammatory activities of essential oil from Hedychium puerense rhizome" is well-written and -designed, it brings helpful information for further phytochemical and biological properties of this species. Below I have some comments to improve the quality:
Abstract
I would recommend to define all the abbreviated forms
Introduction
- is there any phytochemical and/or pharmacological assessments on the "rhizome" parts of the genus. please discuss
Results
- in Table 1, inserting the classification of identified compounds can be useful, demonstrating percentages of monoterpene hydrocarbon, oxygenated monoterpenes, etc.
- in discussion part of each section, comparing the activities with the previous results for other species can be added.
Conclusion
L345: "significantly" to "significant" please
- the perspective statement is superficial, in my opinion, please add more accurate and directed sentences leading to assist future studies
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thanks for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Chemical composition, antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory, and anti-inflammatory activities of essential oil from Hedychium puerense rhizome” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-1489697). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Comments to the Author
Comments:
The manuscript entitled "Chemical composition, antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory, and anti-inflammatory activities of essential oil from Hedychium puerense rhizome" is well-written and -designed, it brings helpful information for further phytochemical and biological properties of this species. Below I have some comments to improve the quality.
Reply: Thank you very much for the positive comments on our work.
Suggestion 1: In the abstract: “I would recommend to define all the abbreviated forms ”
Response: In the abstract, we have provided the full name for all abbreviations and marked the revisions in red in the paper. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 2: In the introduction: “- is there any phytochemical and/or pharmacological assessments on the "rhizome" parts of the genus. please discuss”
Response: In the introduction, we have added the discussion on the phytochemical and pharmacological assessments of the rhizomes of Hedychium plants. “Essential oils of Hedychium species have been reported to possess various biological activities, such as antifungal, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, analgesic, cytotoxicity, anti-acetylcholinesterase, anthelmintic, and insecticidal properties[11,13-16].” has been replaced by “The most ubiquitous constituents in Hedychium rhizomes essential oils are monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, such as 1,8-cineole, linalool α-pinene, and β-pinene [10]. According to previous reports, Hedychium rhizomes essential oils possess various biological activities, including antifungal, antioxidant, anthelmintic, and insecticidal properties, especially their antibacterial activity has been well confirmed [11,13-16].”. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 3: In the results: “- in Table 1, inserting the classification of identified compounds can be useful, demonstrating percentages of monoterpene hydrocarbon, oxygenated monoterpenes, etc.”
Response: In the table 1, we have added the percentages of monoterpene hydrocarbons, oxygenated monoterpenes, sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, oxygenated sesquiterpenes, and diterpenes. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 4: In the results: “- in discussion part of each section, comparing the activities with the previous results for other species can be added.”
Response: According to the study of Tavares et al., only under the same experimental conditions, the biological activities of different samples can be compared. Besides, in different reports, data of the biological activity may be expressed in non-comparable units. For example, Noriega et al. [2] showed that the essential oil of Hedychium coronarium rhizome exhibited significant antibacterial activity against Listeria grayi (MIC = 0.45 mg/mL), Streptococcus mutans (MIC = 0.18 mg/mL), Klebsiell oxytoca (MIC = 0.90 mg/mL). In another work [3], H. coronarium leaves essential oil was also pointed out to have antibacterial activity against different bacterial strains, i.e., Escherichia coli (MIC value = 3.90 µL/mL), Staphylococcus aureus (MIC value = 7.81 µL/mL) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MIC value = 15.62 µL/mL). Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
References
- Tavares, W.R.; Barreto, M.C.; Seca, A.M. Uncharted source of medicinal products: the case of the Hedychium genus. Medicines 2020, 7, 23.
- Noriega, P.; Guerrini, A.; Sacchetti, G.; Grandini, A.; Ankuash, E.; Manfredini, S. Chemical composition and biological activity of five essential oils from the ecuadorian Amazon rain forest. Molecules 2019, 24, 1637.
- Rath, C.C.; Priyadarshanee, M. Evaluation of in-vitro antibacterial activity of selected essential oils. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2017, 20, 359–367.
Suggestion 5: In the conclusion: “L345: "significantly" to "significant" please”
Response: In the conclusion (Line 353), “significantly” has been replaced by “significant”. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. Thank you for these positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Suggestion 6: In the conclusion: “- the perspective statement is superficial, in my opinion, please add more accurate and directed sentences leading to assist future studies”
Response: In the conclusion, we have added more accurate and directed sentences leading to assist future studies in the revised manuscript. The sentences “Hence, H. puerense EO has antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory, and anti-inflammatory activities in vitro, and this fact encourages further studies on the antibacterial and anti-inflammatory molecular mechanisms and in vivo activities of EO.” have been added in the revised manuscript, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
We appreciate the Reviewers’ earnest work and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Minyi Tian’ research group
[email protected] (Minyi Tian)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
