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.
All the queries have been resolved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors
Thank you for addressing the issues raised by our reviewers. There are still some minor issues as highlighted by one of our reviewers in addition to some comments by myself as follows below:
The plant material was collected and lyophilized in India but no Indian co-author is there in the author list. How did you collect the sample?
The amount of Pancreatic lipase is mentioned as (5mg/ml) which is not a correct way of expressing the enzyme quantity. Please mention U/mL. Same is the case with alpha glucosidase. Name the substrates used for their activity. A brief elaboration of the enzyme activity may please be given. The readings in Table 4 are not self explanatory. No units are given.
English language still needs to be improved. There are still a number of grammatical errors in the text. Attention may also be paid towards paragraphing, there are some paragraphs comprising of single sentence.
Conclusion needs to be re-phrased and a very brief conclusion may please be given which actually reflects the outcome of the study.
You are requested to address all these queries and re-submit you MS for further evaluation.
The required changes have been incorporated.
Necessary changes have been considered by the authors.
Seems fine.
Article may be published.
no comment
no comment
no comment
1. line 94: solid phase micro-extraction should be abbreviated as SPME, but not SPME-GC/MS. Similar error exsists in line 120.
2. According to the response, the y-axis in Figure 1 and Figure 2 represent the peak intensity. However, it is confusing to show the data as percent.
No comments
No comments
No comments
Satisfactory
Please address all the issues raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The article comes in the scope of this reputed journal. However, some necessary corrections are required as highlighted through track change in MS- Word manuscript file. The abstract need revision to make it more attractive as it the most read part of manuscript. The introduction on plant is lengthy. Focus is required on the addition of alpha-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase inhibition to manage diabetes and obesity in introduction. The contents related to oxidative stress and role of natural antioxidants are also missing in introduction. Similarly, the toxicity of existing anti-obesity and antidiabetic agents and synthetic antioxidants must be discussed in introduction and discussion portion. Some sentences need rephrasing as already mentioned through track change. The article needs necessary revisions. After that the article may be published if adhere to the journal policies.
In the end of introduction, the need of current work must be established on sound grounds.
1. The work is original and comes under the scope of the journal.
2. All the required tests were performed to test the hypothesis. The analytical techniques used for metabolite identifications are latest and provide substantial information.
3. The extract yields were not calculated and only a single solvent system was used for extraction which may limit the actual potential of study.
4. The methods under section 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10 need revision in detail as they are not reproducible.
5. The data was not sufficient for the statistics application.
6. The DPPH assay IC50 value using trolox was unexplained. It needs some additional information which will be helping for the readers.
1. Information on identification of secondary metabolites using GC-MS and LC-MS/MS added novel information in existing pool of knowledge.
2. The libraries and sources used for metabolite identification including literature were upto the mark.
3. Discussion portion regarding lipase inhibition needs some revision. The molecular level changes related to sphingolipids modulations as obesity factor must be discussed in detail using suitable literature.
4. The reason having no alpha-glucosidase activity by fruit pulp must be clearly elaborated in discussion section.
5. Conclusion is too long, need to short it.
6. Overall, the results were informative and corresponded to the hypothesis or study question.
The manuscript need revision and changes mentioned above and in the manuscript file may be made to make the article more attractive and user friendly. Some grammatic and typo errors were also mentioned to be addressed.
The aim of this research is unclear. The introduction should include the benefit of metabolomic methods for revealing the nutritive property of agroproducts, and the novelty of this research should be highlighted.
no
The research seems to just identify some chemicals and evaluate the TPC, antioxidant capacity, and inhibitory effect of pancreatic lipase (PL) and alpha-glucosidase. But the significance and novelty was not clearly stated.
1. The relation between the results of metabolites profiling and inhibitory effect of pancreatic lipase and alpha-glucosidase enzymes were quite weak, and no inhibitory effect towards alpha-glucosidase was detected according to the results. This makes the title confusing.
2. Line 148: SPME analysis should be SPME-GS/MS analysis.
3. Line 227: Figure 2 should be Figure 1.
4. Figure 1, 2: What does the percent (10%-90%) in the y-axis mean?
5. Several references were not listed in a correct style.
English language should be improved to make the article understandable internationally. The language may be improved including lines 51,55,79,108,211 and 230 as identified in review. Manuscript overall needs to be improved in well versed language format.
Introduction lacking background knowledge regarding medicinal benefits of plant extract hence needs to be well explained and specific. Extra details of plant may be reduced. In methodology section, invitro antioxidant assay, TPC and TFC needs to be well explained scientifically.
Findings are informative and addition to existing knowledge of metabolite profiling in medicinal research.
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.