Toxic and Hallucinogenic Plants of Southern Chile of Forensic Interest: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a narrative review. Nut methodology pf search criterial is like for systematic review, while other attributes of systematic review are absent. Please re-consider the title and approach. While in this case the reason for the methodology is understandable, you are using not only recent cases and not only in southern Chile.

L35-38 Please indicate all relevant hypothesis if this would make the review stronger, or re-visit the first paragraph and make it relevant to the review. 

L53 - State in which countries the Hallucinogenic plants are not regulated. 

L63-65 - Please provide more specific cases, not just statements. 

L80 - "ingestion of which species". All your statements are vague. Please provide examples with references, similar to L93-95. Same true for other places int he Introduction.

What is clearly missing - the images of the poisonous plants or their poisonous parts. as well as the comparison with their non-poisonous counterparts. Please add.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

L47, L48-51, 56-57- The sentences are not clear, poorly structured, problem with orthography and punctuations. Please correct English there and thought the text. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper is extensive and contains a lot of information about metabolites in some plants in Chile.

In attachment you can find everything I have found that should be changed.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted by Díaz and co-workers provides a review of plant-derived secondary metabolites (SMs) with antibacterial activity against foodborne pathogens. The topic is timely and relevant given the growing concern over antimicrobial resistance and the demand for sustainable alternatives to synthetic antibiotics. While the manuscript is generally well-structured and includes a broad range of phytochemical classes (e.g., phenolics, terpenoids, alkaloids), it presents several substantive issues that must be addressed before publication.

The review has notable strengths. It effectively highlights a pressing public health issue and explores the potential of plant SMs as viable antimicrobial agents. The inclusion of summary tables listing active compounds, their plant sources, and proposed mechanisms of action is particularly useful for readers seeking an overview of the field.

 

However, the manuscript has several critical weaknesses that limit its scientific value:

1. The manuscript is largely descriptive and lacks in-depth analysis. It does not critically appraise the cited studies in terms of limitations, pharmacological relevance, or comparative potency. Furthermore, important aspects such as bioavailability, toxicity, and translational challenges of these SMs are not addressed. To strengthen the review, the authors should provide a more analytical synthesis, including discussion on MIC values, structure–activity relationships, and known limitations.
2. Numerous claims are insufficiently referenced or supported by secondary sources such as other reviews. This practice risks perpetuating unverified information. Several references are outdated (pre-2010) or not from primary literature. The authors should revise the bibliography, prioritizing recent (post-2018), peer-reviewed original research articles.
3. The mechanistic insights are vague and lack molecular or biochemical detail. For instance, terms like “disruption of membrane integrity” are frequently used without adequate citation or mechanistic evidence. This section would benefit from detailed and referenced explanations of antibacterial action pathways.

 

In conclusion, while the manuscript addresses an important topic and includes relevant data, it requires revisions to enhance its scientific rigor and analytical depth. Therefore, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.

                                             

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title:

Toxic and Hallucinogenic Plants of Southern Chile of Forensic Interest: A Narrative Review

General Assessment:

This manuscript presents a valuable narrative review of eight plant species with toxic and/or hallucinogenic properties relevant to forensic investigations in southern Chile. It successfully combines ethnobotanical, toxicological, and forensic perspectives, highlighting plants that are commonly misused or involved in criminal activities such as poisoning, suicide, and chemical submission.

The article is regionally significant, especially given the scarcity of forensic literature from Chile and Latin America more broadly. It offers detailed descriptions of each species, their toxic principles, clinical effects, and real-world cases, which may assist forensic practitioners, clinicians, and policymakers. The authors describe a literature review based on major databases and some Spanish-language sources.

However, the paper would benefit from revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, improve clarity, and increase practical impact.

Recommendation:

Major revision
This is a well-conceived and timely manuscript with significant value, but it requires structural and content enhancements to meet the standards of a scientific review article.

Major Comments:

1. Methodology Transparency: The article is described as a narrative review, but lacks details on how literature sources were evaluated. Please include criteria for selecting studies, a PRISMA-style flow (if applicable), or at least a table categorizing the sources by type (clinical, forensic case, review, etc.).
2. Comparative Analysis: The manuscript would be enhanced by comparing Chile’s situation to global trends in forensic botany or poison control systems. This would provide broader context and support the call for improved toxicovigilance.
3. Figures and Tables: A summary table comparing the eight plant species—covering toxicity levels, mechanisms of action, clinical symptoms, and forensic use—would be helpful for readers.
4. Forensic Case Documentation: Some plants (e.g., Latua pubiflora) are described based on their pharmacology and cultural use, without documented forensic cases. Please clarify the basis for including such species in a forensic review and indicate whether their inclusion is precautionary or speculative.
5. Policy and Public Health Recommendations: The conclusions appropriately identify a need for improved reporting and education. However, concrete suggestions - such as creating a centralized toxic plant database, mandatory reporting guidelines, or public outreach campaigns - would significantly improve the manuscript’s applied value.

Minor Comments:

• Streamline repetitive explanations of tropane alkaloid effects across species.
• Include citations from the last five years to support statements about rising trends in chemical submission and plant-based poisonings.
• Consider using subheadings within each species section to improve readability (e.g., "Botanical Characteristics", "Toxic Compounds", "Clinical Cases", etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this revised form, the manuscript is suitable for publication.