UPLC-QToF Nanospray MS and NMR Analysis of Ficus sycomorus Stem Bark and Its Effects on Rabbit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present paper, the authors describe the extraction, characterization and in vivo testing in rabbit of a Ficus sycomorus methanolic extract. The article is quite well-written and easy to follow. Some minor points:

Molecular formulae, such as (CD₃)₂SO should be written with the appropriate subscripts.

Page 5, figure 1: the figure description could be rephrased for clarity's sake. A period would suffice, eg "Global molecular networking prescribing the metabolites identified with databases. Circle nodes are unknown metabolites square nodes are identified metabolites."

Page 7: p-values <0.00 do not make sense. Probably the authors meant <0.001 or <0.01

The only major point that the authors must address is mentioning the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code for animal experimentation.

Aside from these considerations, I reccommend this article for publication on Processes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments that improved our manuscript. All comments are addressed.

1- Molecular formulae, such as (CD3)2SO should be written with the appropriate subscripts.

It was done as kindly recommended, Please see line 114

2. "Page 5, figure 1: the figure description could be rephrased for clarity's sake. A period would suffice, eg "Global molecular networking prescribing the metabolites identified with databases. Circle nodes are unknown metabolites square nodes are identified metabolites.

It was done as kindly recommended, please see lines 200-201

3. Page 7: p-values <0.00 do not make sense. Probably the authors meant <0.001 or <0.01

It was corrected to be P<0.001, please see line 235

4. The only major point that the authors must address is mentioning the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code for animal experimentation.

It was done as kindly recommended, please see lines 118-119

5. Aside from these considerations, I recommend this article for publication on Processes.

Many thanks and we appreciate your efforts

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reported the identification of 8 known compounds from Ficus sycomorus stem bark by molecular networking, as well as the Antidyslipidemic effect of crude extracts on Rabbit. The identity of the 8 compounds was suggested by the molecular networking database, while several in vivo experiments were designed to investigate the bioactivity of the crude exact. As far as I am concerned, this manuscript can be assigned as minor revision.

Here are my questions and concerns.

1. The title is not informative enough, as it merely mentioned the effect. But which effect? It is high recommended to specify.

2. The 8 compounds were suggested by GNPS, were these compounds reported, or identified from this plant before? It is better to confirm. If it is, then the NMR section seems not to be that necessary, and can be eliminated. Particularly, author mentioned the signals from 0.9 and 1.2 ppm are responsible for the fatty acid, which is true. But these signals can also be derived from the grease during the process. And apparently, from the crude H-NMR spectrum, there are a plenty of sugars involved. Again, this crude NMR spectrum did not help much for the explanation of the chemical components of these eight compounds, thus it is recommended to delete.

3. Why the Rabbit was selected as the model animal , instead of mice? Was there any study on the mice previously? It should be, it might be good to mention the reason in the introduction part.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, many thanks for your valuable comments that improved our manuscript. All comments were considered. Your efforts are highly appreciated.

1. The title is not informative enough, as it merely mentioned the effect. But which effect? It is high recommended to specify. It was specified to be "UPLC-QToF nanospray MS and NMR analysis of Ficus sycomorus stem bark and its side effects on rabbit", please see line 3
2. The 8 compounds were suggested by GNPS, were these compounds reported, or identified from this plant before? It is better to confirm. If it is, then the NMR section seems not to be that necessary, and can be eliminated. Particularly, author mentioned the signals from 0.9 and 1.2 ppm are responsible for the fatty acid, which is true. But these signals can also be derived from the grease during the process. And apparently, from the crude H-NMR spectrum, there are a plenty of sugars involved. Again, this crude NMR spectrum did not help much for the explanation of the chemical components of these eight compounds, thus it is recommended to delete.The figure was deleted as kindly recommended, please see page 5.
3. Why the Rabbit was selected as the model animal , instead of mice? Was there any study on the mice previously? It should be, it might be good to mention the reason in the introduction part. We selected rabbit because our project is designed to use this extract for treatment of coccidiosis in rabbit, and it was important to investigate its safety firstly. We added the following paragraph in the discussion. “The potential therapeutic use of F. sycomorus in rabbit in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was described [13]. In this study, we investigated the effect of the methanolic extract of F. sycomorus stem bark on rabbit performance and their hematologic and carcass quality measures to assess its safety”. Please see line 268-271