Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of an Extract with Dermatological and Nosocomial Activity from Agave nuusaviorum, a Mexican Endemic Plant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript of  Edgar García-Sánchez and co-workers entitled „Ultrasound-assisted extraction of an extract with dermatological and nosocomial activity from Agave nuusaviorum, a Mexican endemic plant” describes a new, green extraction method. They obtained the extract from Agave nuusaviorum leaves, which has a promising antimicrobial activity against pathogens of dermatological and nosocomial relevance.

The results are presented in details and distinct.

The subject matter of this manuscript is very interesting and its compilation is careful.

As far as it is a well written and thought-provoking manuscript, and professionally correct.

I recommend this manuscript (applsci-1879802) for publication without any modification.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There is one critical mistake in statistics (i.e., a significant test cannot be performed with the samples number less than 3). It will not majorly change their conclusion but needs to be revised.

I congratulate the authors on your nice work. Overall, the study is nicely done except for one statistic issue. Please refer to the comments below.

 

Title

: I could not find the plant whose name is Agave nnusaviorum. Instead, there is Agave nussaviorum. If this is the misspelling of A. nussaviorum, please correct them throughout the paper.

 

3.2 Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum microbicidal concentration

Line 181-184, and Figure 1d, 1e

: Since you only have 1 sample and 2 samples for bacterium and yeast, respectively, you should not be able to perform a significance test (you need at least 3 samples to calculate it). You might have used triplicated data as 3 samples, but they are still n=1 and n=2 for bacteria and yeast, respectively (not n=1x3=3 and n=2x3=6).

 

Figure 1

: Please indicate what the whiskers and dots in the figures represent. As I mentioned earlier, triplicated data cannot be used as three different samples. You should not have whiskers (if the whiskers indicate either standard deviation or standard error) for bacteria and yeast since you have less than 3 samples for each.

 

Figure 1c

: The lines are so busy and difficult to see. Also, it is almost impossible to distinguish large and small sizes of the same shapes. Please consider a different presentation (e.g., box and whiskers)

 

4. Discussion

Line 215: suggest => suggests

Second paragraph: Please add more discussion on whether these MICs are practical for clinical usage or not if there is any information. For example, if the oral bioavailability of this plan is very low, and it cannot reach this concentration, it is not practical for clinical usage. Or if you only consider using it topically, please discuss it as well.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      Phytochemical analysis of A. nuusaviorum extract is a qualitative measure. Is it enough to measure all components present in the extract?

2.      How can you say that the components obtained in Phytochemical analysis are the only reason for the microbial activity you tested?

3.      Why do you avoid spectroscopic studies for analyzing the extract?

4.      Why don’t you compare the results (microbial activity) with the available literature for the same plant extract maid by some other methods?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1-      Introduction is poor. The authors should mention previous research by different methods.

2-      The authors should explain the mechanism of using ultrasonic in extraction process. Following articles are helpful:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11164-022-04793-8

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10876-013-0605-0

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1226086X13006746

3-      There no comparison between this method and other recent research.

4-      A schematic mechanism of extraction and antibacterial activity should be added.

5-      Why positive microorganisms were selected as target(s)? explain in detail.

6-      The references are too old. Why? What is the advantage of a research that is based on research in 1955!!!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not think most of my questions were answered in the revision.

1. I still cannot find Agave nuusaviorum. Is this different from Agave nussaviorum that I can easily find by online search?

2. Figure 1 legend said that "three replicates", but it was not mentioned in the text. It should be clearly stated in the material & method if they are truly "three replicates" and not "triplicates (= measured three times)."

3. An antimicrobial effect in vitro does not guarantee its effect in vivo. I still think it needs to mentioned as a limitation of the study in discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for providing the changes and comments. 

Regards 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx