Effect of Artificial Light Treatment on the Physiological Property and Biological Activity of the Aerial and Underground Parts of Atractylodes macrocephala

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports the effects of the use of artificial light treatment on physiological characteristics and bioactivity of the aerial and underground parts of Atractylodes macrocephala. The aims of this paper are interesting and the work is apparently well conducted. However, there are several points that need explanation and/or correction. Please see the comments below.

 1. The title must be revised in order to better reflect the work. “The comparative analysis of bioactivity” was not really studied. The effects of the artificial light treatment on some physiological characteristics and biological activities of the aerial and underground parts were really studied.

2. The abstract should report better the results obtained, i. e., results should be organized to facilitate their understanding.

3- The introduction section should be more objective and provide more details on recent studies on the influence of light from a qualitative, quantitative and duration point of view on the Atractylodes macrocephala culture. The authors should clarify this issue in order to highlight and justify the importance of this study. The authors also generalize some information and specify others that are not unique to the species studied, especially for the antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activities. I suggest authors to review also:

- Line 31: “compositae” - rephrase to “Compositae”;

- Line 32: “Atractylodis Macrocephalae” - rephrase to “Atractylodes macrocephala”;

- Line 92: The study cited [17] was carried out in 2007. Authors should use more current informations on inflammation performed with Atractylodes macrocephala to support the introduction. For example:  1- Yang S, Zhang J, Yan Y, Yang M, Li C, Li J, Zhong L, Gong Q, Yu H. Network Pharmacology-Based Strategy to Investigate the Pharmacologic Mechanisms of Atractylodes macrocephala Koidz. for the Treatment of Chronic Gastritis. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 29;10:1629. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01629. PMID: 32063848; PMCID: PMC7000373.

2- Jeong D, Dong GZ, Lee HJ, Ryu JH. Anti-Inflammatory Compounds from Atractylodes macrocephala. Molecules. 2019 May 14;24(10):1859. doi: 10.3390/molecules24101859. PMID: 31091823; PMCID: PMC6571718.

- Line 93: the aims and the title are not related to each other (please review).

 4- The Material and Methods section should be improved considerably and the questions below should be corrected and/or introduced in this section:

- Line 102: a) How old are the transplanted seedlings? How long in cultivation are the plants able to produce the metabolites of interest? Why 2 weeks? How was this period determined? How many seedlings were used in each treatment? Which experimental design was used?

- Line 108: What is the wavelength provided by microwave electrodeless light (MEL)?

- Line 119: How much plant material was used for the extraction?

- Lines 138 and 143: add in which unit the results were expressed;

- Line 146: the reference indicated by the authors [21] does not describe the methodology used for the antimicrobial activity tests performed;

- Line 153: What were the positive and negative controls for de antimicrobial tests?

- Line 154: What methodology is the tyrosinase inhibitory activity assay based on?

- Line 172: What does NO mean? Nitric oxide? Please, write out.

- Line 180: The reference [23] is about to nitrate and nitrite analysis. I think that these analyzes do not relate to NO production rate and the signaling in inflammation …;

- Line 198: Details about the statistical treatment of the data obtained and the experimental design used in all experiments are not described. I strongly recommend adding and detailing these informations from line 198.

5- Results and discussion section:

The results are well described, but they need to be further discussed based mainly on more recent studies. According to the methodology present and the results obtained, it is not clear whether the effects observed on the variables analyzed are really due to the quality of light used in the cultivation. I'm not sure the exposure time was enough. The figures and tables captions should be improved, adding in all of them the abbreviations used and their meaning (Figures 1 to 5 and tables 1 and 2). See also:

- Line 217: the term "sun light" is not described in the methodology;

- Line 247: Figure 2 - Who is "a" and who is "b" in the figure? Add in the caption;

- Line 250: Are these measurement units correct? Wouldn't it be micrograms?

- Line 272: the Figure 4 was not cited in text and also and it was showed in the text before the presentation of the results for tyrosinase - please review;

- Line 291: Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium were also cited in methodology and in the Table 2 – please review;

- Line 324: Please improve the quality of the Figure 5;

 - Line 309: Absence of specific studies on inflammation and Atractylodes macrocephala in the discussion of the results on the anti-inflammatory activity - please review.

 6- Conclusion section: the conclusion presents a summary of the results. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

 

Q1: The title must be revised in order to better reflect the work. “The comparative analysis of bioactivity” was not really studied. The effects of the artificial light treatment on some physiological characteristics and biological activities of the aerial and underground parts were really studied.

R1: revised the title.

 

Q2: The abstract should report better the results obtained, i. e., results should be organized to facilitate their understanding.

R2: The abstract is well organized with the results.

 

Q3: The introduction section should be more objective and provide more details on recent studies on the influence of light from a qualitative, quantitative and duration point of view on the Atractylodes macrocephala culture. The authors should clarify this issue in order to highlight and justify the importance of this study. The authors also generalize some information and specify others that are not unique to the species studied, especially for the antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activities. I suggest authors to review also:

R3: It has been revised in consideration of the reviewers' opinions.

 

Q4: Line 31: “compositae” - rephrase to “Compositae”;

R4: revised to Compositae

 

Q5: Line 32: “Atractylodis Macrocephalae” - rephrase to “Atractylodes macrocephala”;

R5: revised to Atractylodes macrocephala

 

Q6:  Line 92: The study cited [17] was carried out in 2007. Authors should use more current informations on inflammation performed with Atractylodes macrocephala to support the introduction. For example:  

• Yang S, Zhang J, Yan Y, Yang M, Li C, Li J, Zhong L, Gong Q, Yu H. Network Pharmacology-Based Strategy to Investigate the Pharmacologic Mechanisms of Atractylodes macrocephala for the Treatment of Chronic Gastritis. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 29;10:1629. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01629. PMID: 32063848; PMCID: PMC7000373.
• Jeong D, Dong GZ, Lee HJ, Ryu JH. Anti-Inflammatory Compounds from Atractylodes macrocephala. Molecules. 2019 May 14;24(10):1859. doi: 10.3390/molecules24101859. PMID: 31091823; PMCID: PMC6571718.

R6: According to the opinion of the reviewer, the latest anti-inflammatory papers were cited in the introduction and revised.

 

 

Q7: Line 93: the aims and the title are not related to each other (please review).

R7: According to the opinion of the reviewer, the relationship between the goal and the title was revised and written.

 

<The Material and Methods section should be improved considerably and the questions below should be corrected and/or introduced in this section:>

Q1: Line 102: a) How old are the transplanted seedlings? How long in cultivation are the plants able to produce the metabolites of interest? Why 2 weeks? How was this period determined? How many seedlings were used in each treatment? Which experimental design was used?

R1: It was recorded in detail and corrected.

 

Q2: Line 108: What is the wavelength provided by microwave electrodeless light (MEL)?

R2: MEL represents a broad spectrum with no specific wavelength.

 

Q3: Line 119: How much plant material was used for the extraction?

R3: revised to ‘Three harvested A. macrocephala materials….’

 

Q4: Lines 138 and 143: add in which unit the results were expressed;

R4: revised to 1 mg·mL^-1

 

Q5: Line 146: the reference indicated by the authors [21] does not describe the methodology used for the antimicrobial activity tests performed;

R5: I have replaced it with the following citation: Irith W, Kai H, Robert EWH (2008). Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat. Protoc., 3(2): 163-175.

 

Q6: Line 153: What were the positive and negative controls for de antimicrobial tests?

R6: I inserted following sentence: A sample containing only solvent (MeOH) was used as a negative control and tetracycline as a positive control.

 

Q7: Line 154: What methodology is the tyrosinase inhibitory activity assay based on?

R7: I inserted following sentence: The tyrosinase inhibition activity was measured according to the Bernard and Berthon method[??].

Bernard P and Berthon JY. (2000). Resveratrol: An original mechanism on tyrosinase inhibition. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. 22:219-226.

 

Q8: Line 172: What does NO mean? Nitric oxide? Please, write out.

R8: I revised to Nitric Oxide (NO).

 

Q9: Line 180: The reference [23] is about to nitrate and nitrite analysis. I think that these analyzes do not relate to NO production rate and the signaling in inflammation …;

R9: I have revised reference.

 

Q10: Line 198: Details about the statistical treatment of the data obtained and the experimental design used in all experiments are not described. I strongly recommend adding and detailing these informations from line 198.

R10: Based on the opinions of the reviewers, the statistical processing and analysis method was drafted.

 

 

<Results and discussion section:

The results are well described, but they need to be further discussed based mainly on more recent studies. According to the methodology present and the results obtained, it is not clear whether the effects observed on the variables analyzed are really due to the quality of light used in the cultivation. I'm not sure the exposure time was enough. The figures and tables captions should be improved, adding in all of them the abbreviations used and their meaning (Figures 1 to 5 and tables 1 and 2). See also:>

Q1: Line 217: the term "sun light" is not described in the methodology;

R1: According to the reviewer's opinion, the methodology was explained and revised.

 

Q2: Line 247: Figure 2 - Who is "a" and who is "b" in the figure? Add in the caption;

R2: added in the caption

 

Q3: Line 250: Are these measurement units correct? Wouldn't it be micrograms?

R3: No. That's correct.

 

Q4: Line 272: the Figure 4 was not cited in text and also and it was showed in the text before the presentation of the results for tyrosinase - please review;

R4: Figure 4 was cited and revised.

 

Q5: Line 291: Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium were also cited in methodology and in the Table 2 – please review

R5: Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium were cited in result part and revised.

 

Q6: Line 324: Please improve the quality of the Figure 5;

R6: I revised.

 

 

Q7: Line 309: Absence of specific studies on inflammation and Atractylodes macrocephala in the discussion of the results on the anti-inflammatory activity - please review.

R7: According to the opinion of the reviewer, the discussion on anti-inflammatory research was further explained and revised.

 

<Conclusion section: the conclusion presents a summary of the results. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review.>

R: At the end of the conclusion, future value and prospect based on these results are explained and revised.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled "Comparative analysis of bioactivity between the aerial and un- 2 derground parts of Atractylodes macrocephala according to arti- 3 ficial light treatment" is a nice study with good experimentation and results.

However, it needs minor revision.  the following comments should be resolved in the revised manuscript. 

Line 32: "Atractylodis Macrocephalae" should be italic.

Line 85-89 : Authors should split this long sentence, as it is not clear and making confusion for readers.

Line 55: Please write the correct statement "Plant leaves, flowers, and fruits contain abundant flavonoids."

Line 105: Authors should mention the light/dark time also.  

Line 111: Authors stated that "dry weight of the aerial parts as well as the total length and dry weight of the underground part were measured" how many total plants were planted and how they sacrifice plants for aerial and root ; explain it.

Fig 2, 3, 4 & 5: the font size in all figures are too small, increase the font size.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

 

The article entitled "Comparative analysis of bioactivity between the aerial and un- 2 derground parts of Atractylodes macrocephala according to arti- 3 ficial light treatment" is a nice study with good experimentation and results.

However, it needs minor revision.  the following comments should be resolved in the revised manuscript. 

Line 32: "Atractylodis Macrocephalae" should be italic.

A: I revised.

Line 85-89 : Authors should split this long sentence, as it is not clear and making confusion for readers.

A: I revised.

Line 55: Please write the correct statement "Plant leaves, flowers, and fruits contain abundant flavonoids."

A: I deleted.

Line 105: Authors should mention the light/dark time also.  

A: I revised.

Line 111: Authors stated that "dry weight of the aerial parts as well as the total length and dry weight of the underground part were measured" how many total plants were planted and how they sacrifice plants for aerial and root ; explain it.

A: I revised.

Fig 2, 3, 4 & 5: the font size in all figures are too small, increase the font size.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Corrections were performed satisfactorily.