Unveiling the Value of Amomum tsaoko Crevost & Lem.: A Review from Bioactive Compounds to Health Benefits and Industrial Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a comprehensive and updated review of Amomum tsaoko, integrating information on chemical composition, biological activities, safety, and industrial applications. However, conceptual limitations are observed. 1.- The manuscript lacks a clearly described review methodology. The authors should explicitly describe the literature search strategy, including the databases consulted, search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the time period covered, and the study selection process. 2.- Greater critical analysis is needed throughout the manuscript. 3.-The authors should better distinguish between preliminary in vitro findings and evidence supported by in vivo studies. 4.-Several claims regarding therapeutic potential appear stronger than warranted by the available evidence. 5.- The safety and toxicological assessment section should be strengthened. 6.-Several figures are informative but appear highly complex and contain extensive details that may reduce readability. Increasing font size and simplifying some graphical elements would improve clarity. 7.-Table 1 is valuable but extremely extensive. The authors may consider restructuring the table or dividing it into thematic subsections to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an extensive overview of the phytochemistry, biological activities, safety, and industrial applications of Amomum tsaoko. The review is comprehensive and well-organized.

Minor comments:

- A brief explanation of the database searched and the publication period covered is recommended.

- The manuscript contains multiple alphanumeric codes (e.g., "CN118909696A") that are not explained in the text and do not appear in the reference list. Please clarify the nature of these identifiers (e.g., patent numbers, or other records) and provide appropriate references or descriptions where necessary.

- Please italicize "in vitro" and "in vivo" throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Unveiling the value of Amomum tsaoko Crevost & Lem.: A review from bioactive compounds to health benefits and industrial applications” provides a comprehensive overview of the composition and functions of Amomum tsaoko Crevost & Lem (AT). The authors highlight the therapeutic and industrial potential of this underutilized plant, offering valuable insights into its properties and future clinical or commercial applications. However, several aspects need to be addressed:

1. The authors should address the pharmacokinetics of the diarylheptanoid and flavanol hybrid compounds.
2. The authors should discuss the potential impact of dietary supplementation with AT on intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum.
3. The authors mention the beneficial effect of AT on cardiovascular disease. What are the underlying mechanisms of this effect? Is it mediated solely by its hypoglycemic and anti-obesity properties, or is there also a direct cardiovascular effect?
4. The authors should clarify the anti-obesity mechanism of AT. Could this effect involve the browning of white adipose tissue, and if so, by what molecular pathway? Additionally, is this mediated through lipolysis stimulation, lipogenesis reduction, or both? Which specific enzymes undergo activity modifications?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the observations made in a coherent and appropriate manner. For example, a methodology for the literature review was incorporated, the abstract was improved, the introduction was strengthened, and the bioactivity sections were enriched. However, some areas for improvement remain: 1. There are formatting errors, such as partially repeated text and incorrect heading numbering, among others. A more detailed review of the document is suggested. 2. A summary of the document's conclusions is suggested. 3. A lack of clinical evidence is still observed, indicating a limitation in the manuscript's scope. 4. Some stylistic details persist, which could be simplified to improve the document's readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be published in its current form. I would like to thank the authors for their thorough revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx