Polyphenol-Rich Purified Bioactive Fraction Isolated from Terminalia catappa L.: UHPLC-MS/MS-Based Metabolite Identification and Evaluation of Their Antimicrobial Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In Abstract and Introduction, the authors have always emphasized drug resistance. Please explain the relationship between this research content and drug resistance.
2. In Materials and Methods, please add Statistical analysis.
3. Please revise Significant figures and Analysis of variance of all data.
4. If possible, please quantitative analysis, especially main chemical compositions.
5. Line 406-407” Rapid identification and characterization of unknown compounds in the purified fraction from medicinal plants can be attained by analytical technique like UHPLC-QTOF- MS/MS analysis.” Please add ref! In this study, no novel compound was identified. The identification of new compounds should require nuclear magnetic analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors explored the antimicrobial activities of a polyphenol-rich purified fraction from Terminalia catappa; however, some points need to be improved.

1. Label the signal in Figures 2 and 3 according to Tables 4 and 5 (Figure numbers should be updated according to their presence in the text).
2. don't repeat the results in Tables 1, 2, and 3; reduce lines 169-199.
3. Lines 279 -301 are already mentioned in Tables 4 and 5 and the discussion; please remove them.
4. the discussion is redundant, please reduce it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Here I present the review of the paper entitled “Polyphenol rich purified bioactive fraction isolated from  Terminalia catappa L.: UHPLC-MS/MS based Metabolite 3 identification and evaluation of their Antimicrobial potential” submitted to coatings.

Paper instigates the antimicrobial properties of extracts form Terminalia catappa

Critical issues

1)Language must be improved. In present form paper is extremally hard to read and understand.

Major issues

2)Bacterial strain names should be written in full name when first mentioned. Names of the bacteria should be written in italics, generic name (genus) should be written with capital letter. (Mistake for example in line 47, 48, 64, 65,

3)Introduction needs improvement. Please provide more data on Terminalia catappa. Also, in the introduction, aim of the study should be better emphasized.  

4)Conclusion must be rewritten. Please address only described experiments.

It must be noted that there is no information about cytotoxicity of tested extracts against mammalian cells. Thus, based on presented data it is hard to assess relevance of the study. Hover we this may not be considered as downside of the paper, but rather as suggestion for authors

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please add content of compounds in Table 4.

Author Response

content of compound is been added suitably in table 4.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improve the manuscript.

Author Response

The Manuscript has been improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors provided some necessary  changes, howler still language quality is unacceptable. Please ensure that language quality and sufficient and proper nomenclature is used. In attached file I highlighted some mistakes, however it is not all - extensive editing is needed. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Nomenclature and other minor corrections have been incorporated through out the manuscript according to the suggestion. Also a detailed information regarding the microbial cultures used in the investigation has been included to avoid further ambiguity. (lines: 231-244).