Antibiofilm Effect of Siegesbeckia pubescens against S. mutans According to Environmental Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting. The applied methods were adequate for the study objectives, but the assays are not well detailed.

The following clarifications should be addressed:

Abstract: Similarly to the other presented results, for antioxidant activity a quantitative values should be added. Why  GTase results were not included in the abstract?

Line 73: The microbial species applied in the study should be indicated. the word pathogens should be avoided and replaced by bacteria or microorganisms. 

Line 78 - The word samples should be added before were. Also for 2.4.

2.3 Inhibition of GTase activity - How the results were expressed?

Lines 101-102: This sentence is not clear, the extracts were contaminated at a concentration of 10^6 CFU/mL and then in the following sentence is mentioned that extracts were added to S. mutans. the procedure is not clear. How the results were calculated and expressed?

Line 109: The pathogens are not preformed by disc diffusion method, the microorganisms were used in disc diffusion method that is a technique to evaluate the antibacterial activity.

Line 117: was estimated should be added before using the 96-well.

Line 124: antioxidant should be added before activity.

Line 125: the samples concentration applied in the assay should be indicated.

2.8 How the results were expressed?

Caption table 1 - Should be referred that the antibacterial activity corresponds to inhibition halos by disk diffusion method. 

Table 3 is not clear, what is the intent of the authors with that table?

Line 197: What the authors intent to say with "when the control was compared with 100%"?

Line 207: Add by before DPPH.

Line 242-243: this sentence is not clear SPY has the best what?

Table 4 - Why table 4 is presented in the discussion and not in results?

Discussion: The authors should improve the discussion regarding the obtained difference of results between the extracts from the three different locations. SPY presented higher antibacterial activity,  SPS demonstrated higher antioxidant activity and SPC higher SOD-like activity. This differences should be discussed.

Line 277: SGE - Which is the meaning?

Line 282: SPY has the most activity and SPS has the least - this sentence is not clear activity on what?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have written a research article titled “Antibiofilm effect of Siegesbeckia pubescens according to environmental factors”. The manuscript can be considered for publication after major revision with consideration following points.

1.      The title of the article needs modification, specially “according to environmental factor” segment.

2.      The material section is totally missing in this article; please include

3.      The aim of this research should be included at the end of the introduction section

4.      At what temperature was ethanolic extract prepared?

5.      In line 80, what does TM indicate?

6.      In the 2.5 section, what was the control sample used for the comparison?

7.      Some of the bar diagrams in the figure 2, 3 and 4 do not have standard deviation bar.

8.      As the author has mentioned that “all experiments were performed independently in triplicate,” but most of the data reported without mean ± SD value

 

9.      The conclusion section needs significant improvement

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All corrections are in the revised pdf

However,

Ethical approval must be provided

A reference for judging antimicrobial activity and MIC should be added

Quality control for sensitivity and MIC must be added

Source of bacteria must be clarified

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted.