Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 29th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 12th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 7th, 2022 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 23rd, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Sep 23, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have appropriately addressed the reviewers' concerns. The revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

All questions are clear and accepted.

Experimental design

All method already done.

Validity of the findings

The results were discussed clearly.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 12, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Three referees have reviewed your manuscript, and their comments are attached below.

[# 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1.The author should have a figure that showed the anti-Cryptococcus neoformans form terrien(1), as it's the only one purified compound that effective.

Experimental design

1. What's the criteria to choose the microorganism tested for antimicrobial assay?
Why the mold fungi did not test for antimicrobial assay, as data form the literature reported that terrien (1) showed antimicrobial activity against mold.
2.The author defined the MIC as causing a 1-log reduction in light production, what about the MBC/MFC?

Validity of the findings

1. Even the purified compounds are known chemical structure, but the new finding of the microbial activity was interesting with future study of mechanism.
2. If possible, the antimicrobial activity test with combination of two compounds will show more effective against microorganism than single compound.

Additional comments

Even the purified compounds are known chemical structure, but the new finding of the microbial activity was interested with future study of mechanism.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

(1) Introduction needs improvement. Please explain clearly to show how big the problem is and the significance of this study.
(2) There are duplications in writing.

Experimental design

(1) The investigation is quite rigorous, but not comprehensive.
(2) The methods were sufficiently described, except for the initial screening. Please explain the methodology of the initial screening.
(3) Is it not quite systematic. There are some gaps in the research flow that can raise questions from the reader because there is no explanation or reasoning. Please see the attachment which I have described point by point.
(4) Some results are missing.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Cadelis M, et al. manuscript “Terrien, a metabolite made by Aspergillus terreus, has activity against Cryptococcus neoformans” is an original article to explore the potential or novel compounds from the metabolites of microbial collected from New Zealand and the South Pacific regions. It is an interesting article. However, it needs improvement to make it comprehensively described. Some matters are not clearly explained or discussed.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

Its is a short manuscript and supplemental results should also be stated in the main section.

Experimental design

Design is confusing. Particularly, what is the rationale to use E. coli and S. aureus in the primary screen? What was the rationale of pursuing fractions 3 and 4 if fractions and 5 showed activity against S. aureus. Selected compounds were then tested against a bigger panel; what if other fractions had compounds with activities against other microorganisms as well, that were missed since the initial screen was performed in E. coli and S. aureus?

Validity of the findings

Conclusion is OK for what was tested.

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.