Traceability of Geographical Origin in Gentiana straminea by UPLC-Q Exactive Mass and Multivariate Analyses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript entitled: “Traceability of geographical origin in Gentiana straminea by UPLC- Q Exactive mass and multivariate analyses” describes a study regarding the geographical origin traceability of Gentiana straminea from three locations in China, being a study of local interest. From this point of view, I consider that the topic is not of the major audience and it addresses only to local population. However, the analysis methods and the elements of metabolomics used in the identification of chemical compounds have scientific interest.

In the paper, 42 samples of Gentiana straminea from different regions are characterized, but only the chemical compounds are tested in in vitro studies and not the extracts, so there is no connection between the two parts of the works. In order to be published in Molecules I consider that the paper needs to be improved major from experimental and structural point of view.

Major:

The title is unsuitable and not reflects the second part of the study: the inhibiting activities of Nitric oxide (NO) production in Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced macrophages.

 

The data regarding the previous characterization of chemical composition of straminea are out of date (references 14-21).

 

In the Cell culture methodology and the measurement of cellular viability and Nitric oxide (NO) assay is not clearly specified the compounds that were analyzed. Also the concentrations are not specified. Please, revise this part.

 

The author says: „As well as gentiopicroside, Nitric oxide production was also suppressed by loganic acid, swertiamarin and vitexin„. Where these results were presented?

 

I understand that the inflammatory potential of the extracts has not been studied. In these conditions there is no connection with the first part of study that involves the chemical composition of forty-two populations of straminea. The paper should be completed with the tests regarding the effects of the extracts taken in the study.

 

Please improve the quality of the Figure 5. They are not readable in the present form (the letters are too small, the legend is not shown and the colors are not distinguished).

 

The conclusions are not presented.

 

 

Minor:

Lines 41, 48, 50, 55 at the end of sentence use dots.

 

To add Chinese Pharmacopoeia 2015 at references

 

The research objectives, that appear described in the first paragraph of the discussions, should be introduced in the last paragraph of the introduction.

 

 

There are several redaction errors regarding free spaces in parentheses or between commas and words.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

 Thanks for your thoughtful advice and comments! We have revised the manuscript exactly according to the comments, and found these comments are very helpful. I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable and informative.

In all, I found these comments are quite helpful. Thanks for your promptly answer and constructive advices. We have carefully revised the manuscript and highlight the changes with red words; we look forward to make it easier to accept my paper.

Yours sincerely,

Ph.D. Zheng Pan

Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.

Guo-Ying Zhou,

Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Science, Xining.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally:

The quality of presentation is really low:

punctuation and capital letters must be strongly revised

the writing is not accurate

the English form must be strongly revised

Materials and method must be improved

Results

2.1

Which samples were used for identification by UPLC-Q? What data are shown in the table 1?

2.3

“From the legal point of view…geographical origin of G.straminea”: to be moved in the previous paragraph

Fig.3

The legend of the figure must be clearer. F.e.: Fragmentation patway proposed for loganin (a) and  secologanol (b).  The letters must be shown on the figure.

Discussion

Do the samples meet quality requirements?

Material and methods

4.1

The methods of harvesting the plants must be specified better. The authors have to add if they collected the plants from spontaneous or crop, how many plants (Were the samples sufficiently representative?), in which period, the part of the plant they analysed, how it was collected.  How were the samples dried?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thanks for your thoughtful advice and comments! We have revised the manuscript exactly according to the comments, and found these comments are very helpful. I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable and informative.

In all, I found these comments are quite helpful. Thanks for your promptly answer and constructive advices. We have carefully revised the manuscript and highlight the changes with red words; we look forward to make it easier to accept my paper.

Yours sincerely,

Ph.D. Zheng Pan

Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.

Guo-Ying Zhou,

Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Science, Xining.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was mostly revised according to the requirements. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 Thank you for your industrious and efficient work in processing our manuscript , and thanks for your agreement with our response.

Yours sincerely,

Ph.D. Zheng Pan

Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.

Guo-Ying Zhou,

Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Science, Xining.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors also in the revised version  did not specify which samples the results of the analysis refer to, as it was requested (68-69 Forty six peak were detected….(fig.1)…(table 1);  Legend of fig.1 and Table 1; Material and methods)

Does the data refer to the average of the samples collected?

Or are the data referred to a single sample? In this case which one?

Fig.3: It was not modified

The legend of the figure must be clearer. F.e.: Fragmentation patway proposed for loganin (a) and  secologanol (b).  The letters must be shown on the figure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks for your thoughtful advice and comments! We have revised the manuscript exactly according to the comments, and found these comments are very helpful. I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable and informative. The revisions were addressed point by point.

In all, I found these comments are quite helpful. Thanks for your promptly answer and constructive advices. We look forward to make it easier to accept the paper.

Yours sincerely

Ph.D. Zheng Pan

Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf