Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor;

The elucidation of the mechanisms of action of molecules with antibacterial effect is an important approach to discover  new drugs. Overall, the authors use precise and technical English. Some of the language used might be confusing for non-native speakers. The grammar/language used significantly impacts the clarity of the manuscript in some parts. The document contains many missuses of English language, and scientifical writting: missing italics in  bacteria name, via). In addition, the authors must reduce the conclusion. on the other hand, the authors are invited to respect the instructions authors  of the Journal.
these remarks do not in any way diminish the quality of MS, indeed the manuscript is well prepared and the result of this work is a suitable for publication with minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, however some fragments of the Manuscript need to be corrected or clarification, as listed below;

Some ideas in the text are not clear; see lines 20-21 and 32-35 – please to be more concise and clear.

Line 67; numbering of the references should be; [2, 5-8] or [2, 5,6,7,8] not [5,2,6,7,8]

Lines; 68-69; please arrange these information as follows;

“Eugenol, a phenylopropanoid is found abundantly in the essential oils of the species such as; Syzygium aromaticum; Cinnamomum zeylanicum; Myristica fragrans; Ocimum basilicum; Illicium verum; Melissa officinalis; Anethum graveolens; Laurus nobilis”.

What is “apanese” (see line 68) it is not clear.

In lines 74-77 , and also In the Conclusion section (page 10 lines; 13-15 from the top) betulinaldehyde was mentioned, however it is not clear, is it the only one example of such a type of study, or is it between eugenol and betulinaldehyde some other similarity existing – please clarify.

Lines; 92 and 132 ; Was Eugenol prepared in 1% or 10% DMSO ?

Page 6; Information in the Table 2 and in the Figure 1 is duplicated. In my opinion Fig 1 should be deleted. When we look at the Table 3 and Table 2 we see only 6 genes (rplI, rplF, rpsK, luxS, argC, Obg) not 11 genes, however, we can see, and it is clear, that their mechanisms of regulation are different – and it should be clearly stated.

Not clear; In the part of “Amino acid metabolism” we have some issue with eugenol action; this compound reduces luxS gene expression, and therefore it induces biofilm production and heightened the virulence of the Staphylococci bacteria. – How it may be helpful in the antibacterial action ? As authors said in the last sentence of this part of discussion; “….inducers of luxS or metabolites that neutralise inhibitors of luxS, would enhance luxS expression and reduce biofilm…” it is ok, however, as we can see in the text previously, eugenol acts in the opposite way – please clarify.

The part of the “Translational ribosomal biogenesis” (lines 4-41 from the top of the page 9) should be shorter and more concise, because we have in this text detailed info about the formation of ribosomal particles, which is, I think, it is a basic knowledge for readers from the field of biological and genetical sciences, to whom this manuscript is addressed.

Page 10 (line; 8 from the top) is “Eugenol may be used…” it should be “Eugenol may be considered”… or “Eugenol may be tested…”

In the text (lines 12, 20, 21) and in the References 1, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 25, 37; the systematic names of the species should be all written in italics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf