Determination of Enzyme Inhibition Potential and Anticancer Effects of Pistacia khinjuk Stocks Raised in In Vitro and In Vivo Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Τhis study reports, in a comprehensive and comparative way, the significant anticancer activities and several enzyme inhibitions of the Pistacia khinjuk Stocks (Anacardiaceae). The results of this study represent the first reports of cytotoxic, antihypertensive, anticholinesterase, antiurease, antityrosinase and antielastase enzyme inhibition activities of different parts of P. khinjuk (root, stem and leaves) regenerated under in vitro and in vivo (male and female) conditions. The in vivo samples were found to be more effective than the in vitro samples in all the methods tested and the results showed that in vitro stem parts of khinjuk pistachio could also be evaluated as an alternative new antihypertensive, antielastase and anticancer agent, thus a new natural product.

The introduction provided is well-structured.

The material and methods are exhaustively documented, and the experimentation is well-designed.

The results are robust, and their interpretation is sound. The authors finally discuss their findings, providing a good positioning of their study in the body of current research.

Authorship of taxa (species or subspecies) mentioned is not consistently presented at the first mention of a scientific name of a plant. The authors are invited to include the authors of the scientific names of taxa at their first mention throughout the manuscript. However, the scientific names should be mentioned in full in the legends of figures and Tables.

The language needs some improvement in many cases (see notes in the attached pdf) and considerable editing is needed to reach consistency (see the dozens of sticker notes in the pdf file). Therefore, I have tried to re-write some parts to facilitate understanding or I sometimes suggested more appropriate phrasings (see sticker notes in the pdf file). Some parts are still unclear, especially in the discussion (see highlighted texts and stickers in the pdf file; these parts seem to be redundant).

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thanks to Reviewer #1 for nice words on our manuscript

Question 1.

Authorship of taxa (species or subspecies) mentioned is not consistently presented at the first mention of a scientific name of a plant. The authors are invited to include the authors of the scientific names of taxa at their first mention throughout the manuscript. However, the scientific names should be mentioned in full in the legends of figures and Tables.

Answer 1. We thanks to Reviewer #1 for this critical comment. We corrected the authorship of taxa throughout the paper. We cordially thanks to Reviewer #1.

Question 2.

The language needs some improvement in many cases (see notes in the attached pdf) and considerable editing is needed to reach consistency (see the dozens of sticker notes in the pdf file). Therefore, I have tried to re-write some parts to facilitate understanding or I sometimes suggested more appropriate phrasings (see sticker notes in the pdf file). Some parts are still unclear, especially in the discussion (see highlighted texts and stickers in the pdf file; these parts seem to be redundant).

We thanks to Reviewer #1 for valuable comments. We improved English taking help from a native speaker, and also we corrected parts as indicated on PDF file suggested by Reviewer #1. We cordially thanks to Reviewer #1 again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Please consider my suggestions and comments below in order to improve the quality of the manuscript:

 

Title:

- It is too long, please shorten, if possible

 

Abstract

L29: please define the "MS"

 

Introduction

L65-72: "Various...disorders." please cite the related reference

L76: please correct "beta" in "beta-caryophyllene", please check the whole text

 

Materials and methods

• I can not see the bioactivities have been performed on which type of living organisms in "in vivo" media? female and male of what?

 

Results

• In Table 1, have you compared effect of the plant samples with any positive control?

L309,327: please define the unit of the values

 

Conclusion

• Please conclude more in details about findings of the study. This part is too general, I think.

References

• Please check all the references again, specifically in case of being italic of plant species (e.g. see L508, 524, etc.)

 

Good luck

Author Response

We thanks to Reviewer #2 for these kind words about our paper. We improved and corrected all points below based on Reviewer #2. We cordially thanks to Reviewer #2.

Title: It is too long, please shorten, if possible

We can use the phrase “several enzyme inhibitions” instead of “Antihypertensive, Anticholinesterase, Antiurease, Antityrosinase, Antielastase enzyme inhibition”. However, we do not suggest a change as we think the shortening will reduce the article title's strikingness. We have used them for writing a catchy title. However, if the Reviewer-2 asks again, it can be changed as we mentioned above.

Abstract

L29: please define the "MS"

Defined

Introduction

L65-72: "Various...disorders." please cite the related reference

Cited

L76: please correct "beta" in "beta-caryophyllene", please check the whole text

Corrected

Materials and methods

I can not see the bioactivities have been performed on which type of living organisms in "in vivo" media? female and male of what?

By “in vivo”, we mean that male and female khinjuk trees (Pistacia khinjuk Stocks) grown in the natural environment.

In terms of secondary metabolite content, it is crucial to reveal the differences between the naturally grown plants and the forms grown in the in-vitro, as it eliminates the risk of destruction by collecting the species from their natural environment, and allows the serial production of plant extracts containing valuable metabolites in the laboratory environment.

Results

In Table 1, have you compared effect of the plant samples with any positive control?

In Table 1, male and female trees that grown naturally in vivo are used as positive controls. The comparison was made in this way, and the differences between extracts of trees grown in the natural environment and extracts of plantlets grown in vitro in terms of anticancer activities and various enzyme inhibition were revealed.

L309,327: please define the unit of the values

Defined.

Conclusion

Please conclude more in details about findings of the study. This part is too general, I think.

Corrected as suggested.

References

Please check all the references again, specifically in case of being italic of plant species (e.g. see L508, 524, etc.)

Checked again.