Current Knowledge of Medicinal Mushrooms Related to Anti-Oxidant Properties
and In-Jung Lee 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript does not meet the requirements for the review article.
It is sketchy and requires a careful review of world research.
The references cover the current state of research to a small extent.
Authors should use a different layout in the presented work.
For example, broken down into specific metabolic diseases and then describing the applications of mushrooms that are useful in treating these diseases.
The work does not contain graphics.
Besides, the manuscript is not formatted to meet journal requirements.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, I have prepared the article as suggested by your valuable comments. Most of the paper is first updated with the latest material and revised using English editing service.
I hope this revised version satisfies your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for your exhaustive work and effort. However, some points must be carefully revised before publication:
- Abstract. Line 7: “Healing with mushrooms has become an art and is becoming more popular day by day”. Although it would be an appealing sentence for the readers, I consider that this statement could be considered speculative. Maybe it can be rephrased emphasizing that the bioactive effect is due to the fungal functional compounds and “healing” should be replaced by a less categorical term.
- Introduction. In this section, I strongly recommend to include (at least mentioning) other bioactive compounds that can be found in mushrooms: lipids (ergosterol and derivatives), polysaccharides (glucans) and other metabolites (ergothioneine, eritadenine, etc.). You can utilize these useful references: https://doi.org/10.1039/C9FO01744E, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FO01704B
- Material & Methods. Did you use other databases besides Google Scholar? If yes, please include them in this section. Moreover, it would be great if you can mention the keywords that you utilized.
- Review. Line 45. “The mechanism of action is immunomodulatory so it can be use as prophylactic agent for COVID 19”. Since this action will be significant for readers, I recommend to add more information regarding the suggested mechanism of action.
- Review. I strongly recommend to organize the structure of this section. The quality of the information is high but the structure and format should be revised. I suggest to divide it in different subsections. The present format is just an enumeration of studies that can be better organized. The use of a supporting table is recommended too.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, I have prepared the article as suggested by your valuable comments. Most of the paper is first updated with the latest material and revised using English editing service.
I hope this revised version satisfies your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Shaffique and Lee summarize in their contribution entitled „Medicinal mushrooms as antioxidants and their role in metabolic disorders“ the current knowledge on medicinal mushrooms related to antioxidant properties. The reference list consists of altogether 50 publications covering mushrooms from all parts of the world. The authors conclude based on the reviewed data that mushrooms and their preparations suggest antioxidant effects which can be used in the therapeutical treatment of various metabolic disorders.
General part
The authors have worked very hard to collect information on antioxidative activities of medicinal mushrooms. Unfortunately, there are several major issues concerning the manuscript as follows:
- The abstract does not fully fit to the title of the paper as the authors conclude in the abstract that the mushrooms can also be used as a prophylactic against COVID-19 (lines 16/17). No explanation for this unexpected finding is given in the whole text.
- The keywords (lines 18/19) do not characterize the text as the DPPH test is only one of the test methods used in the cited publications and apart from the two Ganoderma species many other mushrooms are described in the manuscript.
- The conclusion in lines 231-233 is much too short for a good review. The authors should evaluate and discuss the findings, e.g. which class of natural products is most important for high antioxidative activity, which mushrooms have a very high antioxidant potency and are best to use in therapy, which mushrooms are easily available etc. The conclusion that antioxidant activity suggests a connection to „pharmacological treatments of various metabolic disorders“ is not supported by any explanation apart from studies cited in lines 81-111. The studies in lines 81-111 cover only in vitro and in vivo tests with animals. There are no hints at an in vitro – in vitro correlation for the species Homo sapiens, i.e. it is unknown whether the antioxidant effects will have an influence on metabolic disorders in man. In addition a good review should also include recommendations for future research on mushrooms to be applied in therapeutics. Further a good review should also mention review articles by others regarding antioxidative properties of medicinal mushrooms.
- The audience should know who is the corresponding author. Additionally the acknowledgements „BK21“ should be explained.
- Some abbreviations are used which should be explained to the readers („NAFLD“ in line 83, „GEE“ in line 91, „TAG“ in line 91, „CHO“ in line 91, „DLA“ in line 198, „EAC“ in line 198).
- The style of the manuscript is in part not of good quality, and there are numerous mistakes thoughout the manuscript, especially in the text from lines 81 to 111 (see below).
Special part
Mistakes / sentences which are difficult to understand etc.
Line 47: „… studies suggest …“
Line 50: Turkey
Line 50: „… estimated …“
Line 72: „… that is characterized …“
Line 74: „… was directed …“
Line 81: „… that is positively linked …“
Line 82: „There is not proper underlying management therapies…“ Please rephrase this sentence!
Line 83: „Recently in 2021 a study was conducted …“
Line 84: „Poria cocos“ and the names of the Ganoderma species should be printed in italics
Line 85: „… liver disease. Medicinal mushrooms …“
Line 86: Please rephrase the sentence!
Line 88: „scientifically important because of their uses …“
Line 89: „A study was conducted by the University of …“
Line 95: chlorogenic acid
Line 98: „… culinary mushroom on mice …“ (please delete the „a“ in the text“)
Line 98/99: Please rephrase the sentence!
Line 102/103: „… mushrooms and oats are significantly …“
Line 108: „… that is pharmacologically important …“
AND SO ON! There are several more mistakes and unclear phrases in the following lines and pages, respectively. The authors are recommended to ask a native speaker to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Thus in my point ov view the manuscript unfortunately needs a major revision taking in account the issues mentioned.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, I have prepared the article as suggested by your valuable comments. Most of the paper is first updated with the latest material and revised using an English editing service.
I hope this revised version satisfies your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editors
Dear Authors
The Authors took into account numerous suggestions of the reviewer, but the manuscript is still not satisfactory.
The manuscript requires very careful reading and editing.
On pages 5 and 7 the most of the paragraphs start with "A study was conducted on the ....."
This is no good for the reading.
Numerous errors are in the table.
Numbering in the column is unnecessary.
Names are always written according to the rule: genus name capital letter, species name small letter.
Common names, e.g. shitake, should not be included.
Unnecessary commas and dots in the table.
All names should be given e.g. Auricular ...
Some data in the table is incomprehensible:
1 Black,
2 Red,
3 Jin,
4 Snow,
5 Silver ears
The information on the mechanism of action should be rewritten in the table and separated from the chemical composition.
The manuscript needs to be rewritten.
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although most of the suggestions were taken into account by the authors, the structure is still improvable. The section "Review" is a enumeration of studies that are not well-organized. This matter affects the readability of the article.
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Shaffique et al. summarize in their contribution „Current knowledge of medicinal mushrooms related to antioxidant properties“ (formerly „Medicinal mushrooms as antioxidants and their role in metabolic disorders“) the antioxidant properties of mushrooms based on numerous papers published within the last years.
Based on the reviewers´ comments the authors have prepared a revised version of the manuscript. Compared to the first version the number of co-authors has increased and most recent publications from 2021 were included. Now, altogether 60 references on the topic are included. Overall the authors have again worked very hard, especially to improve the quality of the manuscript. All mistakes were corrected, a table was introduced in order to summarize the high number of studies mentioned in the text. Indeed, this second version is of much higher quality compared to the first version of the manuscript.
HOWEVER, not all issues are solved and still need to be addressed within a major revision of the manuscript:
The STYLE of the manuscript is still in part not of good quality. The studies are enumerated in a descriptive style and the text is in part not fluent enough, e.g. several paragraphs describing one study start with „A study was conducted …“. In my oppinion the findings are not presented in an exciting way for the interested readership.
Lines 71-75: The authors describe the application of medicinal mushrooms in COVID-19 (lines 71-75). However, the authors only present an in vivo study and cite the publication by Hetland et al., 2021. In my point of view this is an interesting putative indication for medicinal mushrooms, but this still remains a speculation, as we all do not know whether the in vitro and in vito data correlate with effects in humans. Hetland et al. also mention that it seems possible that certain medicinal mushrooms might act as a prophalactic or therapeutic add-on remedy in COVID-19. Shaffique et al., however, write, that „it can be used to treat the superinfection related to pneumonia and COVID-19“. In my point of view the data only show that it might be used as an add-on remedy in COVID-19. Therefore the author´s sentence on COVD-19 should be rephrased.
Lines 140-143: The authors cite the study by Lo et al., 2021, who conclude that based on existing data, that certain medicinal mushrooms possess activities „which may be useful to prevent and attenuate the development and progression of NAFLD“. So please rephrase the summary of the study!
Lines 373/374: The authors conclude that the metabolites are good for health sustenance and potent therapeutic agents against various metabolic disorders. Again, this sentence should be rephrased and the authors should be more careful with their conclusions. At least they should change the sentence to „might be potent therapeutic agents“ unless clinical studies confirm the effectiveness.
As mentioned in my review of the first manuscript, a good review should include recommendations for future research on mushrooms to be applied in therapy. Other review articles which are available in high numbers on antioxidants and medicinal mushrooms should be included in a good review article. Unfortunately, the authors did not address this suggestion.
Special part
Line 20: lovastatin is also a statin or do you mean other statins?
Line 59: perhaps it would be useful to mention the database, e.g. pubmed or google which you have used for your search of literature
Line 67/68: Sentence? What do you mean?
Line 129: Do you mean „the high“ content of total phenolics?
Line 160: „HMG-COA“ – please explain in the table abbreviations!
Line 165: at doses of …
Line 225: flavonoids are phenols
Line 291: which is the potent phenolic compound?
Line 360: „silver ear mushroom“
Line 379: I cannot understand this sentence. Please rephrase!
Thus in my point ov view the manuscript unfortunately needs a major revision taking in account the issues mentioned.
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
All included sugestions have been incorporated. The manuscript is improved I recommend publication in FOODS.Author Response
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you so much for your appreciation and suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Shaffique et al. have prepared a second revision of their manuscript based on the previous review. In summary, the quality of the manuscript has improved enormously, especially the style is much more fluent thus it is much easier for the readership to follow.
Remarks on the changes performed by the authors based on my second review
The authors have stated in their answer to my comments and suggestions „The manuscript is revised as suggested“. However, several points were not addressed at all.
For example the authors still write that based on the article by Hetland et al., mushrooms can be used to treat superinfection related to pneumonia and COVID-19 (lines 76-80). As mentioned in my second review no clinical data on humans are shown in order to substantiate this finding (see my second reviews).
In addition a good review should include recommendations for future research and should also discuss the findings of other review articles on mushrooms and their antioxidant and metabolic activities (see my second review).
HMG-COA (line 260) should be mentioned in the table on abbreviations (see my second reviews). In addition the abbreviation „GEE“ (line 294) should also be included in the list of abbreviations.
Flavonoids are phenols (see line 182 and also my second review)
The databases used for the search for literature should be mentioned (lines 59-63, see also my second review)
Lovastatin is also statin (see line 258 and also my second review)
At least a rebuttal or discussion on some of my comments and suggestions would have been useful and necessary!
Further remarks on the current version of the manuscript
Lines 16-17: Uronic acid and hispidine are definitely no polysaccharides! Please correct this!
Line 19: it should be nucleotides (plural)!
Lines 158/159: you mention „it“, but which mushroom do you mean? Please specify!
Line 209: antioxidant
Line 223: unit?
Line 245: „… and promote the scavenging …“
Line 283: „Sensu lato“ is definitely no mushroom. Please check again!
Line 353: unit?
Table, page 11, reference 33: „fight against free radicals“ (in accordance to other entries in the table)
Thus in my point of view the manuscript unfortunately still needs a at least a minor revision taking into account the issues mentioned (i.e. the issues mentioned in my second review and also the further remarks in this current version). Most of the issues can easily be corrected within a short time.
Author Response
Dear sir,
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
