Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

LC-MS analysis

1. On what basis were the compounds identified? What parameters were used for identification? Since full identification is not possible based only on the data contained in Table S1 (Molecular Formula, Molecular Weight, Rt).

For example:

p-Hydroxybenzaldehyde and e.g. benzoic acid have the same wight and formula, benzoic acid has molecular weight 122 (not 105);

citri acid has the same weight and formula as e.g. isocitric acid and saccharolactone;

Eriodictyol has the same weight and formula as e.g. okanin (beside in a flow where organic acids have low retention times it is unlikely that eriodictyol will show up before e.g. isoquercitrin or hyperoside);

isoquercitrin and e.g. hyperoside have the same wight and formula (It is difficult to distinguish them without references compounds based on only Rt);

Procyanidin B2 and e.g. Procyanidin B1 (have the same wight and formula (It is difficult to distinguish them without references compounds based on only Rt), procyanidin B2 has molecular weight 578 (not 278);

Bilobalide has the same weight and formula as e.g. melilotoside and p-coumaric acid glucoside (and Bilobalide is the last likely to be present in tested material)

Procyanidin A2 and e.g. Procyanidin A1, Procyanidin A5 have the same wight and formula;

Morin has the same weight and formula as e.g. quercetin;

Ginkgolide B has molecular weight 424 (not 407), the same as e.g. salicortin and rutarin;

Lindenenol has molecular weight 230 (not 248), the same as e.g. cyclohexyl cinnamate

Cianidanol has the same weight and formula as e.g. epicatechin, javanicin, catechin, altenusin;

Emodin has the same weight and formula as e.g. lucidin, genistein, apigenin, baicalein;

Caffeic acid has the same weight and formula as e.g. phenylmalonic acid (it is also the last possible for Caffeic acid to has that high Rt)

These are only examples, each of the proposed compounds may have its own, often a more likely substitute compound.

2. What were the LC-MS methodology? Analysis parameters, solvents used, flow rate etc. In relation to the above problems, it is hard for me to imagine a system in which e.g. gallic acid has Rt 048 min, caffeic acid has Rt 49.261 min, and oleanonic acid has Rt 23.513 min. The first two are small polar compounds with similar properties and the last one a large lipophilic molecule. This also is only an example.
3. In relation to the above problems, many of the compounds detected are unlikely to be relevant to this species. This, together with all the inaccuracies, raises doubts as to the correct identification of the substances present in the tested material.
4. Please add a chromatogram for LC-MS analysis.
5. Which of the detected substances (after proper identification) were previously identified in a given species and in the same part of the plant? Add this to the manuscript.
6. The results of LC-MS analysis (after proper identification) must be discussed in the manuscript. As for now, active ingredients of RRT (Table 1), may not even be present in the tested material.

 

Other important issues

1. Figure 2 is missing
2. Avoid referring to the tested plant material as “extract” because it is not extract (there was no extraction) but concentrated and dried juice. This should be also clearly stated in the abstract.
3. When describing previous studies on composition or activity (introduction and discussion), please add information about the part of the plant. “Rosa roxburghii Tratt (RRT)” is not precise since previous cited studies were about e.g. fruits, petals, and leaves. In some cases you mentioned “juice” but not always.
4. The study shows the effects of tested juice in the Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment of a Chronic PD but the differences between Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment groups were not discussed. Which application proves to be the most effective and what may be the reasons for the differences or lack thereof? Please discuss this.

 

Other

On the Supplementary Materials list in the manuscript is “Figure S1”. What is this figure? Because it is not present.

There are some typos like e.g. on page 2 reference 14 should be [14] or on page 5 reference 19 should be [19].

Different references style e.g. names of journals with full name or abbreviation

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Neuroprotective Effects of Rosa roxburghii Tra. Extract in Parkinson's Disease Mice via the PI3K/AKT Signaling Pathway” given for revision is focused to investigate the preventive, interventional, and therapeutic effects of Rosa roxburghii Tra in an MPTP-induced chronic Parkinson's disease mouse model, and to elucidate its underlying molecular mechanisms by integrating network pharmacology pre diction with experimental validation.

The manuscript is very well written on sufficiently good English with logically structured experimental design. The results explain the aim of the study.

I have two major concerns: there is no data about the phytochemical composition of the investigated results and secondly, it will be good to have any comparison in the activity between the investigated extract and extracts of plant species closely related to Rosa roxburghii Tra.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised according to the suggestions. The only remaining issues are that the LC-MS methodology and chromatograms should be added to the manuscript rather than placed in the reponse to reviewer file.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx