Biological Properties in Relation to the Health-Promoting Effects of Independent and Combined Garcinia mangostana Pericarp and Curcuma in Lean Wistar Albino Rats
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Article
Biological properties in relation to health promotion effects of independent and combined Garcinia mangostana pericarp, and Curcuma in lean Wistar albino rats
A brief summary
The work could be interesting and valuable, but it suffers from a fundamental flaw. There are no qualitative or quantitative studies on the composition of the tested extracts. Not knowing the composition of the extracts studied makes it impossible in practice to infer their effect, as it is not known whether they contain compounds with known activity at all. Especially as the authors refer to the activity of specific compounds in the discussion (line 219) and the summary (line 324). The summary is too general and does not include the results obtained from the experiments and mentioned in the title.
Broad comments
1. The sentence in line 72 contains a number of inaccuracies. If this sentence refers to curcumin (Curcuma in [diferuloylmethane]), it is neither a flavonoid nor a component of the essential oil.
2. The aim of the work (line 88) states that 'mangosteen preicarp extract (MPE)' and 'curcuma' were studied. This description of the objects tested appears throughout the work.
a. Why was the curcuma extract not named 'curcuma rhizome extract (CRE)'? How about 'turmeric rhizome extract (TRE)'?
b. Why does the notation 'curcuma' appear in one place and 'Curcuma' in another?
3. If the raw materials for the study were bought twice (February and October 2019) from a 'neighbourhood hypermarkets', how do you know that the material tested was reproducible? E.g. that it came from the same source. And anyway, why were they bought twice?
4. The description of the preparation of the plant material for testing is incomprehensible. What is meant by the statement 'dried twice with double-distilled water' (line 97)? In which specific oven were the turmeric rhizomes dried? How coarse was the powder and in which grinder was it ground? Why was this powder stored in the freezer and not the extracts made immediately? The temperature in mind is probably -80 °C (lines 102 and 115). It is not known from what quantity of raw materials the extracts were prepared.
5. Since the results are given as mean ± SD (line 157) how many repetitions were there?
6. The descriptions of the tables and the interpretation of the statistical analysis used are bizarre. The descriptions unnecessarily repeat the information that extracts were tested separately and together. Probably it would have been more appropriate to do a post-hoc test and report homogeneous groups. Units are once written in brackets, once not, and once there is only one bracket.
7. Latin terms (plants names, families, genera, in vitro, in vivo) should be written in italics.
Specific comments
Line 161-162. this sentence is unnecessary - repeats content.
Line 185 These instructions should be removed.
Line 208-210 This sentence is out of place. It is a summary/conclusion.
The text contains numerous typos.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Article
Biological properties in relation to health promotion effects of independent and combined Garcinia mangostana pericarp, and Curcuma in lean Wistar albino rats
A brief summary
The work could be interesting and valuable, but it suffers from a fundamental flaw. There are no qualitative or quantitative studies on the composition of the tested extracts. Not knowing the composition of the extracts studied makes it impossible in practice to infer their effect, as it is not known whether they contain compounds with known activity at all. Especially as the authors refer to the activity of specific compounds in the discussion (line 219) and the summary (line 324). The summary is too general and does not include the results obtained from the experiments and mentioned in the title.
- Summary was rewritten to be more descriptive and demonstrate the obtained data
Broad comments
- The sentence in line 72 contains a number of inaccuracies. If this sentence refers to curcumin (Curcuma in [diferuloylmethane]), it is neither a flavonoid nor a component of the essential oil.
- Thanks the description of curcuma powder was corrected
- The aim of the work (line 88) states that 'mangosteen preicarp extract (MPE)' and 'curcuma' were studied. This description of the objects tested appears throughout the work.
- Why was the curcuma extract not named 'curcuma rhizome extract (CRE)'? How about 'turmeric rhizome extract (TRE)'?
- Thanks for your perfect suggestion, Curcuma was changed to CRE along the manuscript
- Why does the notation 'curcuma' appear in one place and 'Curcuma' in another?
- In response to your previous comment this was automatically corrected
- If the raw materials for the study were bought twice (February and October 2019) from a 'neighbourhood hypermarkets', how do you know that the material tested was reproducible? E.g. that it came from the same source. And anyway, why were they bought twice?
- This was clarified and you can find highlighted in yellow within the text. You can find highlighted in yellow within the text
- The description of the preparation of the plant material for testing is incomprehensible. What is meant by the statement 'dried twice with double-distilled water' (line 97)? In which specific oven were the turmeric rhizomes dried? How coarse was the powder and in which grinder was it ground? Why were this powder stored in the freezer and not the extracts made immediately? The temperature in mind is probably -80 °C (lines 102 and 115). It is not known from what quantity of raw materials the extracts were prepared.
- Since the results are given as mean ± SD (line 157) how many repetitions were there?
- Done and the number of repetition was mentioned and you can find highlighted n yellow within the text.
- The descriptions of the tables and the interpretation of the statistical analysis used are bizarre. The descriptions unnecessarily repeat the information that extracts were tested separately and together. Probably it would have been more appropriate to do a post-hoc test and report homogeneous groups. Units are once written in brackets, once not, and once there is only one bracket.
- Done and the results were re-described up to your comment
- Latin terms (plants names, families, genera, in vitro, in vivo) should be written in italics.
- Done and you can find highlighted in yellow within the manuscript
Specific comments
Line 161-162. this sentence is unnecessary - repeats content.
- Repetition was deleted and you can find highlighted in yellow within the text
Line 185 These instructions should be removed.
Line 208-210 This sentence is out of place. It is a summary/conclusion.
- Please kindly specify for me to respond to your comment, lines are now completely changed
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text contains numerous typos.
-The whole manuscript was revised
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has some significance， but some details need to be revised。
1.in the paper， i did not know the author use what insturment to detect these index such as SOD, MDA.
2.The dosage of Garcinia mangostana pericarp should be displayed and why choose this dosage.
3. in the line 115,"Both extracts were stored in glass vials in a refrigerator at a temperature of 80 °C prior to use" there should be -80 °C.
4. I suggest the introduction should be rewirrten. I suggest that the author start from the disease, because the change of eating habits now leads to an increased risk of hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia...
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper has some significance, but some details need to be revised。
1.in the paper, i did not know the author use what instrument to detect these index such as SOD, MDA.
- Corrected and spectrophotometer instrument was mentioned
2.The dosage of Garcinia mangostana pericarp should be displayed and why choose this dosage.
- Sorry for this mistake. The dose was mentioned up to their request
- in the line 115,"Both extracts were stored in glass vials in a refrigerator at a temperature of 80 °C prior to use" there should be -80 °C.
- Corrected up to your request
- I suggest the introduction should be rewirrten. I suggest that the author start from the disease, because the change of eating habits now leads to an increased risk of hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia...
- Rewritten according to your suggestion and recent citation was inserted
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors' revised version is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Point by point response to reviewer’s comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors' revised version is suitable for publication.
- Thanks a lot for your positive feedback on our revision and your previous appreciated efforts which help to improve our manuscript.
