Next Article in Journal
Bacterial Foodborne Diseases in Central America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Antiprotozoal Activity and Selectivity Index of Organic Salts of Albendazole and Mebendazole

Microbiol. Res. 2025, 16(4), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040077
by Miriam Guadalupe Barón-Pichardo, Janeth Gómez-García, David Durán-Martínez, Oscar Torres-Angeles, Jesús Rivera-Islas * and Blanca Estela Duque-Montaño *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Microbiol. Res. 2025, 16(4), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040077
Submission received: 3 March 2025 / Revised: 21 March 2025 / Accepted: 25 March 2025 / Published: 27 March 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Antiprotozoal activity and selectivity index of organics salts of albendazole and mebendazole

This manuscript is well-written by the authors. I do believe that if they can improve the manuscripts following all comments. It might have a chance to publish in the journal.

Comments

  1. Topic: Please edit or modify.
  2. Line 15: The words “resulting from protozoa” should be explained or added some information.
  3. Line 22-23: Please re-write or modify.
  4. Line 23: Please delete the words “Additionally, it was determined that”.
  5. Keywords: Five keywords are enough.
  6. I suggest the authors to modify or re-write the introduction. What distinguishes your research between other? please give state of the art of your research

            -The first paragraph: describe the importance of parasitic infections in human. Please describe more information.

            -The second paragraph: describe the conventional treatment of the parasitic infection. The authors should mention an information of albendazole and mebendazole as well as the limitation of those drugs, and antibiotic resistance.

-The third paragraph: describe on some synthetic drugs as alternative strategy for the treatment.

            -The fourth paragraph: describe the objective of this study. Why the authors are interested in this study?

  1. Line 74: Please delete.
  2. Line 174-175: Why did the authors use different inoculum size of each parasite?
  3. Line 177: How many concentration rages of each drug?
  4. Line 172: What is the tested medium?
  5. Do the authors perform a statistical analysis? Please add the information.
  6. Line 237 should be combined with the previous paragraph.
  7. Results: Please give state of the art for writing of the results. The authors should start with positive results. In the present manuscript, the authors mentioned the result form A1 to Mtz (Table 1). In Line 227, the authors presented that “Salt A1 did not present antiparasitic effects on E. histolytica,”. It sounds negative results. It is not interesting.
  8. Line 252: Vero cell is correct. Please edit.
  9. Line 254: The full name of WST-1 reagent (2-(4-iodophenyl)-3-(4-nitrophenyl)-5-(2,4-disulphenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) should be presented in the material and method section.
  10. Figure 2 and 3: Please perform and add a statistical analysis. The authors used different color of each bar. So, no need to use pattern on each bar.
  11. Figure 2/3 and Table 2 are the same result.
  12. Table 3: Please check the line number.
  13. Please add the information of the discussion. Try to compare the results (the author’s hypothesis) with other finding by other researchers.
  14. The references of 2020-2025 are suggested to be cited. Please remove some old and unnecessary references. Actually, 30-35 references are enough of a research article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please modify some sentences and correct the grammar. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting the manuscript about developing some new organic salts of albendazole and mebendazole to against the parasitic infections. In this work, the background is well introduced and the study is well organized. The results are presented clearly, and the figures and tables are appropriate and support the findings. However, more study and discussion could further improve this manuscript. 

  1. Based on your in vitro results, the efficacy of the salts varies depending on the parasite. Could you provide a detailed discussion about it? Why the different function groups affect the efficacy on the parasite? I understand you mentioned it a little in the discussion part, and cited some papers, but it will be better if you could describe more details.
  2. According to the selectivity of Abz and Mbz salts, did you consider to test the efficacy by using two or more salts at the same time? Sometimes, drugs or antibiotics have synergy effects.
  3. We observed the promising efficacy of the salts, but how about the stability of them in human body? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. The additional discussion you made in this version is comprehensive and detailed, which provided more information for the other researchers. Also, I'm happy to hear that you are studying the potential synergistic effects of using multiple salts. But of curse, figuring out the mechanism and the antiparasitic effect of individual salt is the foundation. 

Back to TopTop