Plants with Antimicrobial Activity against Escherichia coli, a Meta-Analysis for Green Veterinary Pharmacology Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are unclear and long sentences especially in the methods.

Apply the writing of the type of bacteria (E. coli) throughout the text. When you first wrote the full name of the species in the text, then use only the abbreviation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No particular complaints, minor suggestions.

Author Response

There are unclear and long sentences especially in the methods.

Apply the writing of the type of bacteria (E. coli) throughout the text. When you first wrote the full name of the species in the text, then use only the abbreviation.

 

Response: On behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions provided that helped to make the manuscript more clear to the reader. The methods section was revised and the Escherichia coli name was amended through all the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s Comments

Plants with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, a 2 meta-analysis for Green Veterinary Pharmacology applications by Rosario et al. is interesting research that identifies plant species and phytochemical constituents with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, highlighting Lavandula spp., Plectranthus spp., and Lupinus spp. as having significant antibacterial efficacy. They demonstrated this via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, thus, by screening 3037 entries and yielding 70 studies suitable for MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) annotation antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): they identified plant species and phytochemical constituents with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli. While such a study as this is crucial to public health, veterinary medicine and scientific knowledge, I believe the authors should carry out further research substantially improve the manuscript for publication. The improvements I think critical have been outlined below.

Major Modifications

Materials and Methods

The study did not clearly detail their inclusion criteria: E.g. does this research include

1.      Studies reporting antimicrobial activity of plant extracts or compounds against E. coli.

2.      Studies conducted in vitro or in vivo.

3.      Peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and conference papers.

The study failed to show the exclusion criteria. For instance,

1.      Studies not focused on E. coli.

2.      Non-peer-reviewed sources.

3.      Studies without sufficient methodological details.

Results

• They study did not include specifics such as

1. Plant species and part used (e.g., leaves, roots, bark).
2. Type of extract (e.g., aqueous, ethanolic).
3. Concentration of extract.
4. Detailed Method of antimicrobial testing (e.g., disc diffusion, MIC, MBC).
5. Results of antimicrobial activity (e.g., inhibition zones, MIC values).
6. Comparative efficacy with conventional antibiotics.
7. Study design details (e.g., sample size, control groups).

Discussion.

 

1. Explore potential formulations and dosages for veterinary use.
2. Consider the safety and regulatory aspects of using plant-based antimicrobials in animals.

Author Response

Plants with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, a 2 meta-analysis for Green Veterinary Pharmacology applications by Rosario et al. is interesting research that identifies plant species and phytochemical constituents with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, highlighting Lavandula spp., Plectranthus spp., and Lupinus spp. as having significant antibacterial efficacy. They demonstrated this via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, thus, by screening 3037 entries and yielding 70 studies suitable for MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) annotation antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): they identified plant species and phytochemical constituents with antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli. While such a study as this is crucial to public health, veterinary medicine and scientific knowledge, I believe the authors should carry out further research substantially improve the manuscript for publication. The improvements I think critical have been outlined below.

 

Major Modifications

 

Materials and Methods

 

The study did not clearly detail their inclusion criteria: E.g. does this research include

 

1. Studies reporting antimicrobial activity of plant extracts or compounds against E. coli.
2. Studies conducted in vitro or in vivo.
3. Peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and conference papers.

 

Response: Thanks for this comment that was necessary to better describe the used method to the reader. The inclusion criteria have now been better described in the methods section.  All the requested details have now been described in lines 146-151.

 

 

The study failed to show the exclusion criteria. For instance,

 

1. Studies not focused on E. coli.
2. Non-peer-reviewed sources.
3. Studies without sufficient methodological details.

 

Response: Thanks for this comment that was necessary to better describe the used method to the reader. The exclusion criteria have now been better described in the methods section. All the requested details have now been described in lines 146-151.

 

Results

 

They study did not include specifics such as:

Plant species and part used (e.g., leaves, roots, bark).

Type of extract (e.g., aqueous, ethanolic).

Concentration of extract.

Detailed Method of antimicrobial testing (e.g., disc diffusion, MIC, MBC).

Results of antimicrobial activity (e.g., inhibition zones, MIC values).

Comparative efficacy with conventional antibiotics.

Study design details (e.g., sample size, control groups).

 

Response: Thanks for this comment that was necessary to better explain the results. All the details requested “(Plant species and part used (e.g., leaves, roots, bark).;Type of extract (e.g., aqueous, ethanolic).; Concentration of extract.; Results of antimicrobial activity (e.g., inhibition zones, MIC values); Study design details (e.g., sample size, control groups).” have now been detailed and uploaded as a supplementary excel file. The results of the MIC values and of the number observations and their variability are resumed (in a more representative way) in the forest plot in figure 2 where are showed the number of studies and the confidence intervals. The comparison with conventional antibiotics is difficult to be discussed because of the high variability, however, a sentence was added in lines 273-278.

 

Discussion.

 

Explore potential formulations and dosages for veterinary use.

Response: Many thanks fort this comments as, the discussion about the initial possible applications is certainly needed in this section. Now the discussion was implemented with these considerations (lines 279-289).

 

Consider the safety and regulatory aspects of using plant-based antimicrobials in animals.

Response: All very important points now better commented in lines 279-289.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some places need revision.

1) Lines 23-25. Why don't combine but separate to write?

2) line 42. [1-3] for the whole paragraph, it is not suitable and reasonable

3) Figure 2. I don't understand the meaning of this Figure.

4) Line 259. The title of Table 2 is missing.

5) I think Table 2 should be in the result part.

6) For the discussion part, one paragraph and one reference, is not suitable for a scientific paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No further suggestion.

Author Response

• Lines 23-25. Why don't combine but separate to write?

Response: Many thanks for this comment. We modified as requested and is much more readable now (lines 23-25).

• line 42. [1-3] for the whole paragraph, it is not suitable and reasonable

Response: The list of references in this paragraph was amended accordingly.

• Figure 2. I don't understand the meaning of this Figure.

Response: Thanks for this comment. I was indeed missing a description in the text of what the figure represents. The description was now provided in lines 164-168.

• Line 259. The title of Table 2 is missing.

Response: The title of Table 2 was now provided.

• I think Table 2 should be in the result part.

Response: Many thanks for this comment. Indeed more appropriate in the results section. Moreover, the numbering was wrong it is now table 3.

• For the discussion part, one paragraph and one reference, is not suitable for a scientific paper.

Response: Many thanks for this comment that helped to better support the discussion section. The references were checked and amended accordingly to better support the different sections.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

If the editorial board considers that it is justified to publish the work without laboratory analysis, but only based on a search of the database on the Internet, I will give consent for publication.

Author Response

Referee 1

 

If the editorial board considers that it is justified to publish the work without laboratory analysis, but only based on a search of the database on the Internet, I will give consent for publication.

 

Response: Many thanks for this comment. This represents a second piece of work to identify the most effective plants against a gram- bacterium. Plants against S. aureus were already identified (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/11/9/2264) using the same methodology and, the extracts of those plants are currently being tested. The work done required at least 6 months for the systematic bibliographic searches and for the subsequent meta-analysis and, in the same way, the extracts of the identified plants will be tested over the E.coli field isolates. This work aims to put the basis for future research that is both in our interest and in the interests of the scientific community.

However, this is an important point that was underlined at the end of the discussion and in the conclusion section that gives strength to the work done.

On behalf of all the authors, we would like to thank the referee’s time and effort that was necessary to improve the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version was better improved than the last version.

I think the contents of Table 2 can be presented as a sentence instead of a table.

Author Response

This version was better improved than the last version.

 

I think the contents of Table 2 can be presented as a sentence instead of a table.

Response: Many thanks for this comment. Table 2 was removed as suggested.

 

On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the referee’s time, efforts and suggestions that helped to make the manuscript more appealing to the reader.