Medicinal Importance and Phytoconstituents of Underutilized Legumes from the Caesalpinioideae DC Subfamily

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading the paper thoroughly, I think the paper is well-written and well organized. This paper systematically reviewed the phytoconstituents of five genus of Caesalpinioideae DC, which could attract the readers of the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

 

General comments:

1.     The title: “Pharmacological importance” seems a little overstressed; it is true that phytoconstituents could be exploited as lead compounds for drug discovery, but most of the pharmacological effects which re here described, come from the ethnomedicinal usage and plant extracts, which contain more active substances than those that are determined. The suggestion is to replace the term “Pharmacological importance” with more appropriate one.

2.     Chemical structures: The structures of chemical compounds need to be in better resolution. The authors should use ChemSketch or another software to draw the compounds. All the structures in whole manuscript should be drawn by the same software and with the same resolution.

3.     Names of the compounds in the text: should be written with small first letter. There are some specific comments bellow, but go through the whole manuscript and do the corrections.

4.     Figures: Figure 4, compound 22: it should be written “acid”, and m should be italics.

In Figures, you may write the capital first letter in the names of the compounds. Or all of them should be small. Choose the option you want, but stay consistent with all chemical compounds.

Be careful with the structure 45. It is not adequate the way it is presented now.

5.     Writing Latin names of plants: when you write the name of the plant species, the first time there should be written the whole name, and every other time it should be abbreviated (for example, line 379 - Acacia Senegal, should be written as A. senegal)

Specific comments:

Line 56: write small letter “f” in word “family”

Line 57: it should be written “Leguminosae”

Figure 1. There should be added the Family – Leguminosae in front of the mentioned subfamilies. What was the order by which you organised subfamilies? Could it be reorganised, to be arranged by the size of the subfamily, or alphabetically? The same is for the Acacia, Albizia, Leucaena, Senna, Canavalia – what are these, genera, species? It should be marked in the figure.

Lines 75-85: How the words Acacia, Albizia, Leucaena should be written, italics or not? Make corrections where needed.

Lines 124-125: place triterpenes and triterpenoids one next to the another

Lines 203-24: what are the marks (1), (2), A1-A3 (3-5) standing for? There are no structures of these compounds in Figure 1.

Line 220: be careful on font in “Albizia glaberrima”; also it should be abbreviated as A. glaberrima

Line 298: “m” needs to be italicised in “m-digallic acid”

Line 303: “c” should not be capital in “coronaric acid”

Line 303: “s” should not be capital in “stearic acid”

 Line 344: “a” should not be capital in “Acaciaside A and B”

Line 356: “s” should not be capital in “Acacia Senegal”

Line 446: the name of a specie should be italicised “L. leucocephala”

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached my response to the comments and how I have handled it.

Regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

To authors

The work falls within the scope of the journal. Also, the detail of significant scientific knowledge is fine. So, the paper requires some minor corrections.

Comments to the Author

The overall script flow seems to fit the journal's domain and writing standards. However, some of the clarifications and minor corrections are suggested by the reviewers to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1. All scientific names are to be italicized. 

2. Check for the line spacing between the subtopics.

3. Check the plagiarism of the whole manuscript point-by-point. The evidence is an attachment file herewith, please check it out.

4. The researchers try to illustrate the importance of phytochemical substances from the legumes, nevertheless, the information on each bioactive compound did not show the toxicity in terms of pharmaceutical function. May authors add some sentences that related to this point. Please justify it.

5. The manuscript presented a lot of chemical structures of the bio-substance; however, it should be corrected significantly one in the manuscript.

6. In the conclusion seems to be in general and is not given separately, it is highly recommended to include limitations of the study and potential future research goals.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the response to the comments.

Regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf