Cladodes of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. Possess Important Beneficial Properties Dependent on Their Different Stages of Maturity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript (plants-2974388) entitled "Cladodes of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. possess important beneficial properties dependent on their different stages of maturity" submitted to Plants, Jessica Maiuolo and colleagues have investigated the properties of cladodes belonging to the same plant but with different stages of maturity. Authors demonstrated that the extracts possess antioxidant and anti-apoptotic properties and the different stages of maturity of cladodes are essential for the performance of both functions. This research is interesting and convincing, but this present manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

Major points:

1. For the Abstract, authors should consider to combine three Abstract paragraphs into one paragraph in the revision.

2. For the Result, authors should consider to rewrite the section titles. The present section titles merely describing the experiment is unsuitable.

3. For Figure 2, abbreviations like e-C, m-C, I-C should be explained the revised legand.

4. For Figure 9, analysis in significance of difference should be performed. Please exhibit the significance of difference in the revised Figures.

5. A conclusion section should be included in the revised manuscript.

Minor points:

1. Full names of abbreviations like ORAC, DPPH, and ROS should be spelt out at their first appearance. Authors should check all abbreviations employed in the manuscript.

2. Authors need to standardize references according to the Plants template. For instance, “J Arid Environ” should be replaced with “J. Arid Environ.” (Line 432).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your helpful suggestions that will improve the manuscript. 

Jessica

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

-        The introduction is well-written and quite clear, excepted some replications that have to be checked.

Materials and Methods

-        No comments, clear and concise.

Results

-        (Line 139-141): How is it possible that m-C has the higher antioxidant activity with its curve close the Trolox 7.6 µg/ml, thus closer to the negative control compared to others?

-        (Line 179): Why for the ROS accumulation to assess the cell antioxidant activity, the cell cultures treated only with the different extracts were not included as it was with Annexin V/PI test for cellular apoptosis?

-        (Line 199): Concerning the expression of caspase 9 and 3, how could it be possible to justify that e-C reduced the expression of caspase 3 while its fluorescence representation looks the same in both caspase 9 and 3?

Discussion

-        (Line 269-274): the antioxidant potential of e-C and l-C cannot be considered absent and be justified only by carrying out by polyphenols, especially because it was mentioned above that they reduced the ROS generated from the H₂O₂ exposition and they all three have an equal level of polyphenols.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your helpful suggestions that will improve the manuscript. 

Jessica

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Cladodes of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. possess important beneficial properties dependent on their different stages of maturity” has been reviewed. In this MS, the authors focused on the antioxidant and anti-apoptotic properties of three different maturities of cladodes of Opuntia ficus-indica. Indeed, the topic is exciting and provides some solid results for using cladodes of Opuntia ficus-indica. Although the authors tried to use polyphenol content differences of Opuntia ficus-indica to explain the bioactivity results. However, it does not seem comparable. Besides, some errors and concerns should be responded:

1.         The family name of the plant does not need to be in italic form.

2.         Please segment the introduction into separate paragraphs and streamline its delivery. Known information, such as the bioactivity and characteristics of polyphenols from nature, need not be stated. Instead, please focus on the research or literature of Opuntia ficus-indica.

3.         Please briefly introduce the usage of different parts of Opuntia ficus-indica, and provide the references in Line 45.

4.         What is the meaning of “powder” in Figure 1?

5.         Please provide the reference in Line 112.

6.         In Figure 2, what kind of toxicity assay was used in the MS? How about the sample concentration? Where is the control group? Can the authors revise the figure to show cell viability (100%) for different samples? Representing samples with methanol or ethanol above the bar is inaccurate; there is a proportion of mixed water.

7.         The cell viability (100%) to different concentrations is easier to read in Figure 5.

8.         Can the authors provide HPLC or HPLC-MS profiles of e-C, m-C, l-C to tell critical differences between them?

9.         Plant material: was one sample deposited in a reference Herbarium? Please mention the one who identifies the plant.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is averaged. However, can be polished.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your helpful suggestions that will improve the manuscript. 

Jessica

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Find the minor revisions required below.

- The introduction text must be divided into paragraphs of up to 7 lines.

- Did the authors produce exsicata from the plant material? How are the authors convinced that they are using the correct blueprint?

- Methodology: The collection section must be separated from the sample preparation and extraction section.

- Methodology: Section 4.8 must be after the bioactive compounds extraction section.

- Authors must insert a conclusion section.

- The results and discussions section was well written by the authors

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your helpful suggestions that will improve the manuscript. 

Jessica

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed my concerns in the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can be accepted

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS has been well revised and I accepted the prescent form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No need to polish the quality of English language.