Phytochemical Profile, Antilipase, Hemoglobin Antiglycation, Antihyperglycemic, and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Observations

L35, Define CEFr and CEFe extracts

L37, is missing symbol ±?

L37-39, recommended not including “SEM” and reducing the number of digits (two) after the period.

L110, extracts were in dry form? It needs to be more specific on the procedure to get that concentration and diluent used.

L115, describe solvents and gradient used.

L125, indicates what is for each component in the formula.

L133-135, rewrite,  the protocol is not clear.

Use the same nomenclature for SEFE and  SEFR (uppercase or lowercase for “e” and “r”) throughout the complete document, including tables, and figures.

L178-187, the protocol is incomplete, it needs to specify the treatments  (orally?) and time after its administration for the test.

L211, it needs rewording, “identified with the standards catequine (1), vanilline (2), ……”

L227, use the same units reported in your study (mg/mL) to avoid confusion.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

L35, Define CEFr and CEFe extracts

L37, is missing symbol ±?

L37-39, recommended not including “SEM” and reducing the number of digits (two) after the period.

L110, extracts were in dry form? It needs to be more specific on the procedure to get that concentration and diluent used.

L115, describe solvents and gradient used.

L125, indicates what is for each component in the formula.

L133-135, rewrite,  the protocol is not clear.

Use the same nomenclature for SEFE and  SEFR (uppercase or lowercase for “e” and “r”) throughout the complete document, including tables, and figures.

L178-187, the protocol is incomplete, it needs to specify the treatments  (orally?) and time after its administration for the test.

L211, it needs rewording, “identified with the standards catequine (1), vanilline (2), ……”

L227, use the same units reported in your study (mg/mL) to avoid confusion.

Thank you very much, dear editor, for your remarks and comments, which will make the manuscript clearer and more readable.

All your comments have been taken into consideration, and we have corrected the mistakes, completed the protocols so that they are more understandable, all the changes are coloured in yellow in the manuscript;

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the outline of the study is good, but the level of novelty is low. However, the author should address the following concerns before publishing.

 Major concern.

1.      The phytochemical study has already been published and phenolic compounds have been reported “Total Polyphenols Content, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Leaves of Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. from Morocco”.

2.      Why the phytochemical profile was included in this work?

3.      If no authentic justification, or something new in the phenolic compounds, then focus only on the activities and remove the phytochemical part.

4.      How the doses for the rate were determined as the toxicity was first checked in mice, so how the safe dose was calculated for rats.

5.      Why the author chooses only antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory activities? The author should provide rationale for conducting this work.

Besides the above,     

§  First sentence of the abstract should be rephrased.

§  Line 37 and 221; IC50 should be written as IC₅₀ and should be uniform throughout the manuscript.

§  The abstract should be concluded with a sentence indicating the future prospect of this work.

§  Line 64; reduce space after ref, [6,7].

_§    Line 145; LD 50 should be written as LD_50.

§  It would be better if the author discusses the results under separated section.

§  In my opinion, the author should revisit the whole manuscript carefully and addresses all the concerns before publishing. 

Carefuly recheck the english

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Thank you very much, dear editor, for your remarks and comments, which will make the manuscript clearer and more readable.

1. The phytochemical study has already been published and phenolic compounds have been reported“Total Polyphenols Content, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Leaves of Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. from Morocco”.
2. Why the phytochemical profile was included in this work?
3. If no authentic justification, or something new in the phenolic compounds, then focus only on the activities and remove the phytochemical part.

The phytochemical profile was included in this work because new extracts were taken from parts of the plant at different times and at different collection sites.

4. How the doses for the rate were determined as the toxicity was first checked in mice, so how the safe dose was calculated for rats.

The choice of doses was based on previous research, and during all the pharmacological tests the rats showed no toxic effect, and we still have to test other activities including acute and sub-acute toxicity.

5. Why the author chooses only antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory activities? The author should provide rationale for conducting this work.

Knowing that diabetes leads to a number of chronic pathologies such as inflammation, we have chosen these two activities and we have carried out other activities that we will publish in our next articles.

Besides the above,     

• First sentence of the abstract should be rephrased.
• Line 37 and 221; IC50 should be written as IC₅₀and should be uniform throughout the manuscript.
• The abstract should be concluded with a sentence indicating the future prospect of this work.
• Line 64; reduce space after ref, [6,7].
• Line 145; LD 50 should be written as LD
• It would be better if the author discusses the results under separated section.
• In my opinion, the author should revisit the whole manuscript carefully and addresses all the concerns before publishing. 

All your comments have been taken into consideration, and we have corrected the mistakes and all the changes are coloured in green in the manuscript;

Reviewer 3 Report

Formatting of the manuscript is required, in some heading  authors have used title case and in some sentence case, maintain the uniformity as per the guidelines of the journal

Chemical symbols should be written as per the protocol of using superscripts and subscripts, similarly , lot a problem can be seen in spacing, formatting

In results and discussion parts, the authors only explained the results, discussion of the findings in terms of why is missing

Edema-inhibiting effect of carrageenan from S. elaeagnifolium extracts and 383 indomethacin (Figures are required)

Conclusion is very little and inadequate to conclude the research, advise to expand.

Some very old references have been cited in the script that need to be replace with the latest work along with the explaination

Overall, the work is good but presentation requires thorough revisions 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

• Formatting of the manuscript is required, in some heading  authors have used title case and in some sentence case, maintain the uniformity as per the guidelines of the journal
• Chemical symbols should be written as per the protocol of using superscripts and subscripts, similarly , lot a problem can be seen in spacing, formatting
• In results and discussion parts, the authors only explained the results, discussion of the findings in terms of why is missing
• Edema-inhibiting effect of carrageenan from S. elaeagnifolium extracts and 383 indomethacin (Figures are required)
• Conclusion is very little and inadequate to conclude the research, advise to expand. 
• Some very old references have been cited in the script that need to be replace with the latest work along with the explaination
• Overall, the work is good but presentation requires thorough revisions 
• The form of the manuscript has been checked and corrected.
• The discussion has been added despite the fact that no similar research has been carried out on the plant studied (coloured in blue).
• The figure on the anti-inflammatory effect has been added to the manuscript. the manuscript has been checked and revised according to your comments

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think there is no  need of figure-6.

Also the last two lines of conclusion is confusing. Conclusion should be based on the findings.

Author Response

Thank you very much, dear editor, for your remarks and comments which will make the manuscript clearer and more readable.
Figure 6 has been deleted from the manuscript.
The conclusion has been rewritten.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

After careful observations, i have found that all the suggested modifications have been incorporated in the manuscript and hence the article is acceptable from my point of view. 

Thanks 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your point of view