Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A review article provides concentrated information about propolis from two different countries (Brazil and Mexico). And it could be published in the journal of Applied sciences after minor revisions. A lot of information is given of chemical and antimicrobial antifungal antiviral properties etc. The structure of the reviewed article is well-thought-out and quite clear.

To make it deeper I recommend to show in the separate paragraph how various properties described in the article correlate with individual chemical compounds which mainly responsible for biological activity. For example, high ferulic acid content addressed to gram-positive bacteria susceptibility and etc.

Line 514 ‚-1‘ should be superscript

Author Response

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Comparison of the biological potential and chemical composition of Brazilian and Mexican propolis - Manuscript ID: applsci-1461884”. We would like to thank the reviewers for their criticisms and considerations, which contributed positively to the scientific quality of the manuscript. All comments and issues raised by the referee were dealt with and resulted in the modifications described below and highlighted in the manuscript

Reviewer 1 comments: 

Point 1 – To make it deeper I recommend to show in the separate paragraph how various properties described in the article correlate with individual chemical compounds which mainly responsible for biological activity. For example, high ferulic acid content addressed to gram-positive bacteria susceptibility and etc.

Answer: We performed the insertion of a paragraph (line 347, in red) discussing/showing some compounds commonly found in propolis, highlighting its antimicrobial activity: 

Although the mechanism of action of these compounds in the antimicrobial function of propolis is poorly understood, some studies suggest that certain isolated constituent compounds have antimicrobial activity [100]. Among the more than 300 compounds already identified in different propolis, the following are examples. 1) Gallic acid and ferulic acid can cause irreversible changes in membrane properties and consequently the occurrence of local rupture or formation of pores in cell membranes, causing leakage of essential intracellular constituent substances. Furthermore, ferulic acid enhances the antibacterial activity of quinolone antibiotics against A. baumannii [101,102]; 2) Artepillin C has bacteriostatic activity with membrane blebbing [103]; 3) Cinnamic acid and its derivatives inhibit bacteria by division of the cell membrane, inhibiting ATPases, cell and biofilm formation [104]; 4). Catechins  in vitro studies have demonstrated antimicrobial effects in bacteria (G+ and G-) and have been reported as effective antivirulence agents [105].

Point 2 – Line 514 ‚-1‘ should be superscript

Answer: This point was adjusted in the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer (now on line 527).

We hope the revised version of the manuscript meets Applied Science publication criteria.

Sincerely

Dra. Ana Paola Balderrama Carmona

Universidad de Sonora

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report

In this review, biological potential and chemical composition are compared for Mexican propolis and Brazilian propolis, and 188 documents are cited. In addition, the authors have created some new figures and tables to compare them, and have carefully considered them based on these.

The comparison of chemical contamination is unique and useful. Therefore, I would like to propose to include "chemical pollution" in the title.

The reviewers point out minor mistakes below. Please correct or consider these.

Line 43: Remove the comma at the end of the line.

Line 136: “in this elemental composition.” should read “in this composition.” (Delete “elemental”

Lines 165-166: “///” should read “//”.

Line 285: “Figure 3a” should read “Figure 3A”.

Line 293: “(B)” should read “(A)”.

Line 389: “3.8” should read “3.9”. (Wrong section number)

Line 410: “16 papers were used.” Is this “16 Papers were used.” ?

Lines 442-443: “respectively” should read “, respectively”. (Add a comma)

Line 447: “5 papers were used.” Is this “5 Papers were used.” ?

Line 474: “3.9” should read “3.10”. (Wrong section number)

Line481: “Table 2” should read “Table 3”. (Wrong table number)

Line 489: What is “--- o spayed ---” ?

Line 520: “Table 3” should read “Table 4”. (Wrong table number)

Line 544: “(19, respectively).” What is this or “19” ?

Line 545: “Table 3” should read “Table 5”. (Wrong table number)

 

Supplementary Materials

Table S1:

　Site [52]: The reviewer cannot understand the signs before “pinocembrin” and “vestitol”.

   [53]: “βamyrin V” should read “β-amyrin V”. (Add a hyphen.)

   [54]: “Dymethylallyl” shold read “Dimethylallyl”.

“Cinnami acid” should read “Cinnamic acid”

“3,4 Dimethoxycinnamic acid” should read “3,4-Dimethoxycinnnamic acid”   

    [74]: After “triterpenoids”, add “:” (a colon).

    [86]: “12-Oleaneno” should read “12-Oleanenol or 12-Oleanenone”.

         “4,8 a-Dimetil-6-(1-metiletenil) 3,5,6,7,8,8ahexahidro-2(1H)- naftalenona, Escualeno”: Check and revise carefully. (“til” should read “tyl”; “nil” should read “nyl”; “hidro” should read “hydro”: “nafta” should read “naphtha”.

 

Table S2

Site [48]: “-8-9-“ should read “-8,9-“.

[37]: “Catechin” should read “Catechin”.

        : “Narigenin” should read “Naringenin”.

        :“Omethylquercetin” should read “O-methylquercetin”.

        : “hidroxiguttiferone K” should read “hydroxyguttiferone K”.

    [35]: “Trans feluric acid” should read “trans-feluric acid”

        : “Chatequin”: Is this “Catechin” ?

        ;” lutenoin”: Is this “luteolin” ?

 

Author Response

Dear Editor

Applied Sciences

 

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Comparison of the biological potential and chemical composition of Brazilian and Mexican propolis - Manuscript ID: applsci-1461884”. We would like to thank the reviewers for their criticisms and considerations, which contributed positively to the scientific quality of the manuscript. All comments and issues raised by the referee were dealt with and resulted in the modifications described below and highlighted in the manuscript

Comments:

Point 1 –

Line 43: Remove the comma at the end of the line.

Line 136: “in this elemental composition.” should read “in this composition.” (Delete “elemental”

Lines 165-166: “///” should read “//”.

Line 285: “Figure 3a” should read “Figure 3A”.

Line 293: “(B)” should read “(A)”.

Line 389: “3.8” should read “3.9”. (Wrong section number)

Line 410: “16 papers were used.” Is this “16 Papers were used.” ?

Lines 442-443: “respectively” should read “, respectively”. (Add a comma)

Line 447: “5 papers were used.” Is this “5 Papers were used.” ?

Line 474: “3.9” should read “3.10”. (Wrong section number)

Line481: “Table 2” should read “Table 3”. (Wrong table number)

Line 520: “Table 3” should read “Table 4”. (Wrong table number)

Line 545: “Table 3” should read “Table 5”. (Wrong table number)

Table S1:

　Site [52]: The reviewer cannot understand the signs before “pinocembrin” and “vestitol”.

(+)-pinocembrin, (₊)-vestitol,

   [53]: “βamyrin V” should read “β-amyrin V”. (Add a hyphen.)

   [54]: “Dymethylallyl” shold read “Dimethylallyl”.

“Cinnami acid” should read “Cinnamic acid”

“3,4 Dimethoxycinnamic acid” should read “3,4-Dimethoxycinnnamic acid” 

    [74]: After “triterpenoids”, add “:” (a colon).

    [86]: “12-Oleaneno” should read “12-Oleanenol or 12-Oleanenone”.

         “4,8 a-Dimetil-6-(1-metiletenil) 3,5,6,7,8,8ahexahidro-2(1H)- naftalenona, Escualeno”:

Check and revise carefully. (“til” should read “tyl”; “nil” should read “nyl”; “hidro” should read “hydro”: “nafta” should read “naphtha”.

Table S2

Site [48]: “-8-9-“ should read “-8,9-“. 

[37]: “Catechin” should read “Catechin”.

        : “Narigenin” should read “Naringenin”.

        :“Omethylquercetin” should read “O-methylquercetin”.

        : “hidroxiguttiferone K” should read “hydroxyguttiferone K”.

    [35]: “Trans feluric acid” should read “trans-feluric acid”

        : “Chatequin”: Is this “Catechin” ?

        ;” lutenoin”: Is this “luteolin” ?

Answer: The point was modified in the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer

 

Line 489: What is “--- o spayed ---” ?

Answer: This point was adjusted in the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer (line 499):

Xenobiotic substances, such as inorganic compounds, bactericides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides are deposited on the soil when sprayed in the air and can be transported to the hive through bee food or in other necessary compounds (water, nectar, pollen from trees and flowers, etc.) where they can remain for years.

Line 544: “(19, respectively).” What is this or “19” ?

Answer: This point was adjusted in the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer (line 557)

Hodel et al., [14] found As, Cd, and Pb in 26.3%, 5.2%, and 73.9% of the 19 samples evaluated. 

We hope the revised version of the manuscript meets publication criteria.

Sincerely

Dra. Ana Paola Balderrama Carmona

Universidad de Sonora

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Propolis is a natural antiseptic produced by bees, which carries out numerous beneficial activities for the whole organism. It appears as a gummy, sticky, water-insoluble resin. The composition of propolis is very variable since it depends on the type of vegetation from which the bees obtain the starting material to process it. This review reports the most recent scientific evidence regarding propolis from two countries (Brazil and Mexico).

The review collects numerous data on propolis from two large countries and provides useful data for operators in the sector. However, some changes are needed.

Line 92: Replace the title "Materials and methods", typical of a research article with one more suitable for a review.

Line 125: Replace the title "Results", typical of a research article, with one more suitable for a review.

Standardize the references according to Instructions for Authors and where possible replace the articles that are not with more updated ones in English to facilitate consultation.

Author Response

Dear Editor

Applied Sciences

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Comparison of the biological potential and chemical composition of Brazilian and Mexican propolis - Manuscript ID: applsci-1461884”. We would like to thank the reviewers for their criticisms and considerations, which contributed positively to the scientific quality of the manuscript. All comments and issues raised by the referee were dealt with and resulted in the modifications described below and highlighted in the manuscript

Comments:

Point 1. Line 92: Replace the title "Materials and methods", typical of a research article with one more suitable for a review.

Answer: We gave the title "Methods" as we thought it is necessary to show how the graphs were made (antimicrobial activity and Antiproliferative and cytotoxic activity). These data were obtained from different articles and "processed" to generate the figures.

Point 2. Line 125: Replace the title "Results", typical of a research article, with one more suitable for a review.

Answer: Has been changed to "discussion"

Point 3. Standardize the references according to Instructions for Authors and where possible replace the articles that are not with more updated ones in English to facilitate consultation.

Answer: The replacement of some articles used, mainly in the Spanish language, becomes difficult, as these data are only available in Spanish. Many of these works have their abstracts in English, where the main results obtained are presented. As discussed in the review, there are scarce studies carried out with Mexican propolis, such as contamination area. Research needs to be carried out and published in English to make these results more prominent.

We hope the revised version of the manuscript meets publication criteria.

Sincerely 

Dra. Ana Paola Balderrama-Carmona

Universidad de Sonora

Author Response File: Author Response.docx