All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Golberg,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
It is my opinion as to the Academic Editor for your article - Fighting SARS-CoV-2 with green seaweed Ulva sp. extract: extraction protocol predetermines crude ulvan extract anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibition properties in in vitro Vero-E6 cells assay - that it requires a number of Minor Revisions.
My suggested changes and reviewer comments are shown below and on your article 'Overview' screen.
Please address these changes and resubmit. Although not a hard deadline please try to submit your revision within the next 21 days.
With kind regards,
Palanivel Velmurugan
Academic Editor, PeerJ
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The manuscript "Fighting SARS-CoV-2 with green seaweed Ulva sp. extract: extraction protocol predetermines crude ulvan extract anti SARS-CoV-2 inhibition properties in vitro Vero-E6 cells assay" addresses a relevant and up-to-date topic. I am of the opinion that it should be accepted for publication after the introduction of the corrections suggested below (see additional comments).
This manuscript is well structured, well-founded, and the results are somewhat relevant
This manuscript is well structured, well-founded, and the results are somewhat relevant
Corrections needed:
line 55 - Remove unnecessary dot and spaces
lines 76 and 77 - Standardize the letters of the units of measure (use "L" and not "l")
line 109 - ... Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
line 111 - ... and Ulva lactuca (formerly Ulva fasciata)
line 121 - ... Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
line 125 - ... was extracted for 2 h with ...
line 129 - ... dialysis membranes for 24 h, and ...
line 135 - ...was conducted for 2 h
line 164 - (43.6, 90, and 136.4°) with ...
line 207 - ...humidity for 72 h, ...
line 220 - ... extract between 5 mg·mL–1 to
line 227 - ... was evaluated by adding 25 µL aliquot ... to 5 µL of ulvan ...
line 229 - ... under 90% humidity for 72 h, ...
line 259 - Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
line 260 - Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
line 2777 - after 72 h of ...
line 323 - ... which was 88% higher ...
line 356 - ... from Ulva armoricana collected ... ("armoricana" in italics)
line 397/398 - ... g·moL-1
line 431 - ... Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
lines 493/494 - ... mg·mL-1, ...
line 511 - ... Caulerpa (in italics) sp. (not in italics)
line 519 - ... Ulva sp. ("sp." is not in italics)
line 531 - ... for a thorough (remove unnecessary space)
The manuscritp is generally well written and understandable.There are only a few very minor points which should be improved:
Line 49: "-" is missing between COVID and 19
Line 104: "-" is too much between "under" and "regulated"
Line 130: Could you please give the respective value in mbar instead of mmHg?
Line 141: Could you please give the resp. value in x g instead of rpm (as rpm can depend on the device used).
Line 272: Should be "assay" instead of "essay"
no comment
No comment
Overall, the manuscript provides a detailed analysis and characterization of the crude extracts and I think it's no problem that the antiviral activity of the two different extracts is absent or not very strong, as this issue has been also sufficiently discussed. In my opinion, it would have been more interesting to the readers to include results of a bioassay-guided fractionation as currently, an antiviral potential of the AOx extract is still a hypothesis. On the other hand, this would have increased the size of the manuscript tremendously.
My major concern, which is not only relevant to this study, but generally to the antiviral activities of SPSS: Is there any source of literlature which suggests that such macromolecules can be effectively used as therapeutics? What about their bioavailability? In particular with respect to COVID-19, how would you assess their therapeutic potential? How should they be delivered to the site of infection to be able to exert their activity against the virus? As there are many reports of in vitro antiviral activites, it would be interesting to discuss this point in more detail.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.