Effect of Ajwa Date and Germinated Barley on Lipid Profile in Rats Fed High-Fat Diet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The present manuscript intends to show the hypolipemic effect of Ajwa date and Germinated Barley in an obesity model.
The model is well-approached, conducted, and easy to follow; it needs a few grammar errors that should be corrected.
These are my comments.
Why was the increase in body weight only 10g concerning control? I expect a high weight increase after 12 weeks.
The HFD animals had blood glucose elevated?
Please change the table's legends; even if it says differences are between rows, it will be more apparent if the authors point out the difference between groups and treatments. For example, in liver weight, all data have an a, which makes confusing data.
Please include statistics in Figure 1. And improve the figure legend
The discussion needs a slight improvement; the second paragraph has many repetitive words; please change it.
Line 314 has no conclusion; please clarify that.
What are the anty-obesity effects? Please write in a more appropriate language.
Line 340 does not have a conclusion again; please write it.
Line 251 what diclofenac toxicity is related to this manuscript? I need help understanding the link.
Why is AST higher in high doses groups? Even if you say it can be due to other organ damage, there are no muscle or heart damage signs with only twelve weeks of an obesity diet. Please rephrase it.
When you say that barley sprout has a high content of saponarin and you attribute the hypolipidemic effect, is there another study to show that or the chemical composition of barely extract? Where is the citation?
Reference 46 says another form of use; the extraction is made in stem hot beverage; please clarify that
None
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1
I have been upload the file
Best Regrads
Reham Algheshairy
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript entitled “Effect of Ajwa date and Germinated Barley on lipid profile in Rats fed High-Fat Diet”, authored by Rana Alduwayghiri and Reham Algheshairy, deals with the investigation of the effect of Ajwa date (AD) and germinated barley (GB) on lipid profile in rats fed a high-fat diet (HFD). The authors observed a increase in moisture, protein, phenols, and vitamin C content and a decrease in the content of ash, carbohydrates, fats, and beta-glucans in GB. Blood total cholesterol levels decreased significantly (83.53, 70.12, 73.55 mg / dL) in groups fed AD and GB mixtures in different percentages (20, 30, and 40%). Likewise, AD and GB mixtures recorded a significant decrease in the level of triglycerides in the treated groups, with no significant effect on the high-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein.
The manuscript contains very interesting data that deserve to be published. In general, it is well written with authority. However, different mistakes and typos are present in the main text, and they should be fixed before resubmission. Moreover, some changes are needed before to consider the manuscript suitable as publication.
In particular,
· Some keywords should be removed and other added. The utility of these terms is to facilitate the search of the article using common scientific search engines (PubMed, GoogleScholar, Scopus, etc.), which rely on the terms contained in title, abstract, and keywords. Consequently, using terms that are already content in these sections as keywords is inappropriate. I strongly suggest that the repetitive keywords be changed before re-submission.
· I have to disagree with the judgment reported in line 41-46. The use of plant-based medicines is not related to their positive effects on cholesterol, but to the fact that dietary supplements are perceived (erroneously) to be safer From consumers. The breakthrough in the use of dietary supplements for the prevention of diseases related to high cholesterol levels is related to the discovery of fermented red rice. Specifically, rice upon fermentation by Monascus purpureus allows the production of monacolin that is structurally equivalent to lovastatin. However, equally to other statins, monacolin K displayed anaphylaxis, hepatotoxicity, central nervous system complaints, rhabdomyolysis effects, and a high possibility of developing diabetes mellitus. This is the motivation because the search for new therapeutics plant for the control of cholesterol levels is important today, as well as find new anticholesterolemic agent that prevent high level of cholesterol with mechanism different from statis. The authors should integrate introduction with this information, and cite cite the source of this consideration doi.org/10.3390/ijms22052664.
· Equation reported in line 107 should be introduced using the respective Microsoft word tool
· Line 124: foline solution? Are the authors sure to use foline and not Folin-Ciocolteau reagent?
· all numbers, even percentages, need units (e.g. w/v, or w/w or v/v).
· In section 2.4.1. already it is reported how the measurement of TPC is carried out. I do not understand why it is also reported in 2.4.2. Also, a description of the method of how the DPPH assay is performed is missing.
· The use of a single assay to evaluate antioxidant capacity is strongly discouraged. Normally these assays are always coupled with other assays that work with similar mechanisms of action (radical scavenging in the case of DPPH) or reducing (in the case of FRAP and CuPRAC). I strongly recommend performing another assay to confirm the DPPH data.
· T-test should be performed on data reported in Table 1.
· Data reported in Table 3 should be shown as Figure
· The caption of figure 1 should be more implemented. In particular, the color legend should be removed from the figure, and the description reported as caption. The description also should report information related to the figure, of what is being evaluated, the units of measurement, and whether the lines represent standard deviations or standard errors. Finally, there is a lack of statistical analysis on the bars shown in the figure. Information about the statistical analysis should also be introduced in the caption. On an aesthetic level, I recommend removing the background lines from the figure, and show the black X- and Y-axis lines.
· The conclusion section needs to be more described and implemented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2
I have been upload the file
Best Regards
Reham Algheshairy
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The study seems fine, methods are written in detail, data are convincing, article language is adequate throughout the manuscript. There are a few corrections needed which are easy to correct.
Line – ‘15 each per group’
Line 342- which is – replace ‘be’ with ‘is’.
The study by Rana Alduwayghiri et al. “Effect of Ajwa date and Germinated Barley on lipid profile in 2 rats fed High-Fat Diet” has clinical significance in treating patients with hyperlipidemia using plant based (Ajwa date and Germinated Barley) which has lower adverse effects as compared to the chemical counterparts.
The introduction part of the manuscript seems adequate and explained with relevance. It is well known that diet plays an important role in dyslipidemia but also exercise and active lifestyle is known to reduce cardiovascular disease. Bringing the mentioned plant-based diet and exercise together would have created more relevance to the current research.
The English language is adequate, easy to understand and few corrections is needed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3
I have been upload the file
Best Regards
Reham Algheshairy
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript contains many formal and substantial errors. It requires a deep revision and a careful analysis and discussion of the results obtained. The methods applied are not clearly illustrated and detailed. An example: where are the extraction and analysis of AD and GB described? In the discussion, no comments are presented to explain the different effects obtained in the different experimental conditions examined.
Author Response
Dear reviewer(s),
We appreciate the time devoted and the proposals you have made. The revised version of the manuscript has been modified according to your comments. Your detailed argumentation of each of the points covered in your review has allowed us to realize some deficiencies when transmitting the work done and improve it for the reader. We will be at your disposal to make any change that you deem necessary, resolve any questions or proceed with new revisions.
Point 1: This manuscript contains many formal and substantial errors. It requires a deep revision and a careful analysis and discussion of the results obtained. The methods applied are not clearly illustrated and detailed. An example: where are the extraction and analysis of AD and GB described?
Response 1: It has been adressed in line 100 to line 129
It has been added the estimation of the chemical composition of cultured barley, determination of bioactive substances in Ajwa date and germinated barley and determination of total phenols in Ajwa date and barley extract in the Methodology
Point 2: In the discussion, no comments are presented to explain the different effects obtained in the different experimental conditions examined.
Response 2: It has been adressed in line 287 to line 323
And line 353 to line 369
Reviewer 2 Report
The present study was designed firstly to determine germination's effect on barley's phytochemical contents. Secondary to investigate the effect of Ajwa date and germinated barley on lipid profile in rats fed a high-fat diet.
Please address the following concerns:
Please include the extraction methods in the Materials and methods section.
Table 2 – Please make sure that the information is correct (i.e. is DPPH% 885.47±1.50 for Ajwa?).
Table 6 – Please discuss why the AST values obtained are higher for ABM-treated groups than for the PC.
I believe that more detailed conclusions would be helpful for the readers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer(s),
We appreciate the time devoted and the proposals you have made. The revised version of the manuscript has been modified according to your comments. Your detailed argumentation of each of the points covered in your review has allowed us to realize some deficiencies when transmitting the work done and improve it for the reader. We will be at your disposal to make any change that you deem necessary, resolve any questions or proceed with new revisions.
Point 1: Please include the extraction methods in the Materials and methods section.
Response 1: It has been adressed in line 100 to line 129
It has been added the estimation of the chemical composition of cultured barley, determination of bioactive substances in Ajwa date and germinated barley and determination of total phenols in Ajwa date and barley extract in the Methodology
Point 2: Table 2 – Please make sure that the information is correct (i.e. is DPPH% 885.47±1.50 for Ajwa?).
Response 2: It has been corrected in line 204
Point 3: Table 6 – Please discuss why the AST values obtained are higher for ABM-treated groups than for the PC.
Response 3: It has been discussed that point in line 367
Point 4: I believe that more detailed conclusions would be helpful for the readers.
Response 4: It has been changed in line 398
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have still some comments to this revised version:
Line 139: male Wister - to be corrected as Wistar
Table 2. DDPPH to be corrected as DPPH
Line 200: 2.61 and 3.33 mg/g, please compare with the values reported in Table 2
Line 229 and Table 4. WAT measurement is introduced; it is not reported in Materials and Methods and it is not indicated how WAT is evaluated
Lines 244, 245: The authors write” However, LDL tended to be higher in ABM30 and ABM40 groups” compared to what? What do the authors mean?
Lines 246 -247: How can you explain that “The highest values of VLDL were shown in NC”?
Lines 283-285: the sentence does not match the data reported in the results
The authors explain the data obtained in the AST analysis referring to the low beta-glucan content of GB. Why wasn't a similar effect observed in AST values?
Line 375: The authors report that “The antioxidative actions, primarily DPPH, are augmented during germination [54], …”. This is not consistent with your results.
The English form still requires a revision
Author Response
Dear reviewer(s),
We appreciate the time devoted and the proposals you have made. The revised version of the manuscript has been modified according to your comments. Your detailed argumentation of each of the points covered in your review has allowed us to realize some deficiencies when transmitting the work done and improve it for the reader. We will be at your disposal to make any change that you deem necessary, resolve any questions or proceed with new revisions.
In the table below, all comments are answered. The lines in the “reviewer’s comment” and “authors’ reply” have been written in the MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
