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.
The manuscript is significantly improved by the authors and now can be accepted in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript was rectified following the Reviewer's comments and suggestions.
The manuscript was rectified following the Reviewer's comments and suggestions.
The manuscript was rectified following the Reviewer's comments and suggestions.
Congratulations to the authors.
The paper is clear.
The design is enough.
The statistics are correct.
Reviewers have raised some serious concerns and shortcomings in the study. MAJOR revision is suggested, which requires substantial and thorough revision to appreciate the quality of the manuscript for publication in PeerJ. Therefore, authors are requested to revise their manuscript in light of the reviewers' comments. Please justify and discuss all questions raised by the reviewers and resubmit accordingly.
[# 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/ #]
Clear and professional English.
Sound.
Valid.
The authors studied the antibiofilm, antioxidant, and antiinflammatory activities of lyophilized cell-free supernatants of lactobacillus isolates. The manuscript is scientifically sound. Methods and conclusions are appropriate.
The study is a interesting approach to probiotic properties of lactobacilli against biofilms.
The english is clear with sufficiente background and references in Itroduction section.
It is missing statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods section and no limitations are recognized by the authors. They started with four pathogenic bacteria but only evaluate antibiofilm properties with the two Gram-negative bacteria.
Bold statements are done in Discussion section and repetition with Introduction section was made.
The manuscript is within aims and scope of the journal.
The research question is well defined and relevant.
The Materials and Methods and Discussion sections need major revisions by the authors.
The findings are worth to be publish in the journal. However, major revisions are needed before acceptance.
The conclusions showed bold statements and no limitations were recognized by the authors.
I did all my comments and suggestions in the annotated PDF file of the manuscript in attachments.
Authors should improve the literature background.
Nitric oxide reduction is not enough to prove anti-inflammatory effects. Authors should provide more evidence regarding anti-inflammatory activities by ELISA, for instance.
Statistics should be presented. How was the data processed? Which statistical test was used? It should be provided.
“Lyophilized Cell-Free Supernatants of Lactobacillus Isolates Exhibited Antibiofilm, Antioxidant, and Anti- inflammatory Activities in Lipopolysaccharide stimulated RAW 264.7 cells” is an interesting paper that brings new evidence of the biotechnological potential use of postbiotics in vitro. This topic is current and attractive. However, it needs some improvements before being considered for publication.
Title
- Why did the authors affirm that the postbiotics had anti-inflammatory activity? Nitric Oxide alone cannot prove that. This way, the title should be changed.
Abstract
- Some parts of the results contain methodology steps. It should be removed. Also, the conclusion should be more specific and focused.
Introduction
- Authors should present this reference in the introduction:
- Xu X, Qiao Y, Peng Q, Shi B, Dia VP. Antioxidant and Immunomodulatory Properties of Partially purified Exopolysaccharide from Lactobacillus Casei Isolated from Chinese Northeast Sauerkraut. Immunol Invest. 2021 Jan 8:1-18. doi: 10.1080/08820139.2020.1869777. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33416001.
Materials and Methods
- Authors should evaluate the production of key cytokines (such as TNF-α and IL-10) to prove that they had any anti-inflammatory activity. It is not possible to conclude that they have anti-inflammatory activities just performing Nitric Oxide by the Griess reaction.
- It is not clear why the authors chose 16 h to perform the Griess reaction.
- Authors should include how they evaluated the data. The statistical analysis should be added in the Materials and Methods section.
Results
- Table 1 – The name of the four bacteria used in this assay should be added in the table legend.
- Figure 1 – What are the controls for this experiment? What the authors used as a positive control of antibiofilm inhibition activity? Also, the quality of the image should be increased.
- Figure 5- There is no statistical difference between the tested groups? It is not clear in the graphic.
Discussion
- Authors should explore further why postbiocts were more effective regarding eradication than inhibition.
- Again, it is not possible to affirm that the postbiotics have anti-inflammatory effects just by evaluating the NO production. How about the key pro-inflammatory cytokines?
Conclusion
- The conclusion should be more focused and be clear about what this paper brings of novelty to the literature.
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.