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.
Dear authors, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All the suggested corrections have been appropriately addressed.
All the suggested corrections have been appropriately addressed.
All the suggested corrections have been appropriately addressed.
All the suggested corrections have been appropriately addressed.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
Dear authors, I kindly ask you to pay attention to the reviewers' comments and make changes and additions to this manuscript. I hope that this will allow the reviewers to approve the publication of this article.
Dear Authors,
I am writing to review the manuscript entitled “UPLC-MS Metabolite Profiling and Antioxidant Activity of Sanghuangporus sanghuang Extract.”
You have done a great job with the revisions after the first round, and I suggest accepting the paper after making the minor revisions listed in "4. Additional Comments."
I had suggested rewriting the entire manuscript, and I can see that you have made significant improvements, especially in the Abstract and other sections, including Materials and Methods. These revisions have greatly enhanced the clarity and readability of the paper.
Thank you for all the implemented corrections.
Dear Authors, please review these comments and take them into account that your paper could be acceptable in its current form after these changes:
Line 75: I suggest that you include Gafforov et al., 2023a
Line 78: I suggest that you include Gafforov et al., 2023b.
Both changes should be implemented in the Reference list:
Line 343: 2023a instead of 2023
Also, this reference should be completed as:
Gafforov Y, Rašeta M, Yarasheva M, Mykchaylova O, Tomšovský M, Lim YW, Abdullaev B, Bussmann RW, Rapior S. Sanghuangporus lonicerinus (Bondartsev) Sheng H. Wu, L.W. Zhou & Y.C. Dai – Hymenochaetaceae. In: Khojimatov OK, Gafforov Y, Bussmann RW, editors. Ethnobiology of Uzbekistan (Ethnomedicinal Knowledge of Mountain Communities). 1st ed. Springer Nature, Basel, Switzerland. 2023a. p. 1389–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23031-8_122
Line 347: 2023b instead of 2023
Please also, carefully check all places with the species name or genus, which must be written in italics (for example lines_ 343, 437, etc.).
All the comments were properly corrected.
All the comments were properly corrected.
All the comments were properly corrected.
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript should be accepted for publication.
The quality of the current manuscript has improved significantly. My concerns are largely clearly presented. The issues mentioned in ‘4. Additional comments’ need attention before the manuscripts can be considered for acceptance.
The shortcomings and deficiencies in the experimental design have been nicely revised and supplemented, and the details are described more clearly.
no comment
The references cited in the manuscript do not seem to be comprehensive enough. In the introduction section, for a basic introduction to Sanghuangporous sanghuang, please read and add the following citation: Distinguishing Sanghuangporus from sanghuang-related fungi: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis based on mitogenomes, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 2024,108,1,423. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-024-13207-1. For the biological and pharmacological activity of Sanghuangporous sanghuang, please add citations “The gut microbiota -aromatic hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) axis mediates the anticolitic effect of polyphenol-rich extracts from Sanghuangporus. iMeta, 2024; 3(2): e180. DOI: 10.1002/imt2.180.”
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
I ask you to carefully respond to all comments from each reviewer. Additional experiments are needed to ensure that the entire article is not based on a single sample. Incorrect names of substances and biological tarmines need to be corrected. Please format the manuscript at the highest scientific level. Circular diagrams (Fig. 3) are undesirable in modern articles.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
Dear authors,
I am writing to review the manuscript entitled “UPLC-MS metabolite profiling and antioxidant activity of Sanghuangporous sanghuang extract”.
It is important to note that the authors made a mistake in the mushroom species name, it is Sanghuangporus sanghuang.
This study explores the phenolic and flavonoid content of an ethanol extract from the mushroom Sanghuangporous sanghuang. It evaluates the extract's phytochemical properties, antioxidant capabilities, and potential DNA damage protection. The extract exhibited strong antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities, with UPLC-MS identifying even 491 metabolites, and for many of them could be predicted to have antioxidant, anticancer, and anti-inflammatory properties.
After carefully evaluation, I recommend rejecting this manuscript. If the authors choose to submit major revisions, they will need to rewrite the entire manuscript.
Before anything else, you must ensure that all text is written in accordance with the journal's guidelines.
Original Primary Research: While the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal, I believe it may not be appropriate for publication in this journal. The study is limited by the examination of only one sample, the lack of a standard compound, and the absence of statistical significance.
Research Question: Although the research question is defined, its relevance and meaningfulness are not adequately demonstrated. The manuscript fails to explain how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. Additionally, the authors did not provide a thorough discussion, and the importance of the presented results is not highlighted.
Rigor and Technical Standards: The investigation lacks rigor and does not meet high technical standards. The study uses standard in vitro assays without introducing any novel methods.
Methodology: The methods section is insufficiently detailed and lacks citations of relevant references. Furthermore, the authors did not describe the method for extract preparation. Although statistical analysis is mentioned, the manuscript only presents standard deviations, with no other statistical data provided.
Impact and Novelty: The manuscript lacks a clear assessment of its impact and novelty. While meaningful replication is encouraged, the manuscript does not adequately articulate the rationale for this replication or its benefits to the literature. The study fails to demonstrate any significant novelty, as it relies on commonly used in vitro assays without introducing new methods. Additionally, the authors did not reference any literature related to the assays used.
Data Presentation: Although all underlying data are included in tables and figures, their presentation is subpar. The data lack statistical significance due to the testing of only one sample, which undermines the validity of the findings.
Conclusions: The conclusions are poorly articulated and do not address the original research question. They are not supported by the results and frequently repeat the same sentences, which are more suited to a review article rather than an original research manuscript.
Dear Authors, please review these comments and take them into account.
Abstract:
Lines 19-23: Background: This is a little confused; I suggest to you complete these two sentences as: “The present study aims to explore the total phenolic and flavonoid content in the ethanol extract of Sanghuangporous sanghuang and to assess its phytochemical properties, antioxidant activity, and DNA damage protection capabilities. This pharmaceutical/food resource mushroom may serve as a new functional food for health-conscious consumers, owing to its promising source of phenolics and flavonoids.”.
Lines 24-27: Methods – in this part you must describe which methods you use in this paper. And what is important to define which methods you have used for measuring antioxidant capacity and DNA damage protection, you just mentioned that you work on both them. It is good to introduce us that you work on ethanolic extract, but it is enough to say following: “S. sanghuang ethanol extract (SEE) was evaluated for
total phenolic and flavonoid contents, while UPLC-MS analysis was used for [insert type of compounds, e.g., phenolic or other specific compounds] identification, and function prediction. Antioxidant and anti-DNA damage activities were tested in vitro using [insert specific assays, e.g., DPPH, ABTS, comet assay, etc.].”.
Line 28-31: Results and Conclusion – You should correct this segment of Abstract as well. For example first and second sentence could be merged into one: “Total phenolic content (TPC) in SEE was 385.38 ± 1.36 mg GA/g extract, while total flavonoid content (TFC) was 298.22 ± 2.38 mg QE/g extract.”. From the third sentence we do not know anything because you did not say which assays you conducted and what results were obtained. Please could you complete this?
Lines 32-33: Which were criteria for defining “20 top compounds”?
Line 34: S. sanghuang not “S. Sanghuang”
INTRODUCTION
Lines 40-42: I do not prefer to say “useful”, maybe you should use term “valuable”. And in this first sentence I suggest to you complete: order, family etc…
• Phylum: Basidiomycota
• Class: Hymenomycetes
• Order: Aphyllophorales
• Family: Hymenochaetaceae
• Genus: Sanghuangporus
Also I saw that you do not used Justify for formatting text, please correct that in revised version.
Line 45: Please cite references chronologically, it is usually to cite like that, and these references should be cited as: “(Lin et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2024)”. Also I suggest to you add this chapter; they described also traditional usages of Sanghuangporus spp.:
“Gafforov, Y., Rašeta, M., Yarasheva, M., Mykchaylova, O., Tomšovský, M., Lim, Y. W., Abdullaev, B., Bussmann, R. W., & Rapior, S. (2023). Sanghuangporus lonicerinus (Bondartsev) Sheng H. Wu, L.W. Zhou & Y.C. Dai – Hymenochaetaceae. In O. K. Khojimatov, Y. Gafforov, & R. W. Bussmann (Eds.), Ethnobiology of Uzbekistan (Ethnomedicinal Knowledge of Mountain Communities) (1st ed., pp. 1389–1399). Springer Nature, Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23031-8_122”
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
Lines 47-48: Please correct all citations to be in chronological order, as in this example: “(Zuo et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2023)”.
Line 51: I suggest to you cite this article, it could give you many useful information about Asian mushroom species:
“Gafforov, Y., Rašeta, M., Rapior, S., Yarasheva, M., Wang, X., Zhou, L., Wan-Mohtar, W. A. A. Q. I., Zafar, M., Lim, Y. W., Wang, M., Bekhzod, A., Bussmann, R. W., Zengin, G., & Chen, J. (2023). Macrofungi as medicinal resources in Uzbekistan: biodiversity, ethnomycology, and ethnomedicinal practices. Journal of Fungi, 9, 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9090922”
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
Lines 52-57: Please short this, you put to much information, this is introduction and you must be concise.
Line 60: Did you make a mistake? In abstract you wrote that you used UPLC-MS analysis and in aims of the manuscript you wrote GC-MS. Please carefully check and made necessary correction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Lines 65-68: Which apparatus did you use? An evaporator? And did you macerate your extracts for 2 hours? Did you use a shaker, or something else? Please complete this.
Lines 72-73: Please correct to “Gallic acid was used as a standard compound, and a calibration curve was created based on concentrations of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 µg/mL.”.
Line 75: Could you please include the manufacturer's name?
Lines 78-79: Please complete as: “quercetin was used as a standard compound by constructing a calibration curve with concentrations of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 µg/mL”.
Also, I noticed that you did not include any references for the methods used, such as TPC, TFC, UPLC-MS, the antioxidant activity assays, and the anti-DNA assay. You must complete these sections with appropriate references.
I suggest you that UPLC-MS re-place below TFC, because this method is used for mycochemical characterization.
RESULTS
I noticed that you presented the results for TPC, TFC, and antioxidant activity separately as Table 1 and 2. However, since you tested only one extract, you should present all the results together. In the first row of Table 1, include TPC and TFC, and below that, present the results for the FRAP, DPPH, and ABTS assays. Please consider this suggestion.
Line 128: You did not measured potential of flavonoids and phenolic acids as potential reducing agents, because you used extracts (stock solution) and tested them, please correct this.
Line 131: extract instead of Extract
Lines 157-158: All these compounds names should be written without caps lock as: ”phytosphingosine,
hispidin, sorbitol, withaferin A, and salvianolic acid A”
Lines 158-159: This is more appropriate for Discussion segment of the manuscript, and you must complete this with references which confirmed this statement.
Line 160: „plant extract“? Do you mean in Sanghuangporus sanghuang extract? Because S. sanghuang is mushroom/fungi not plant. Please carefully check this.
Line 161: Maybe is more appopriate „Additionaly, the structures of the main present 20 compounds…“
Also, I suggest you that you use term the most present instead of top 20, because your definiation „top 20“ did not have any scientifically soundness.
Lines 166-167: Please correct all compound category name with small letter, without caps lock.
DISCUSSION
Through the whole introduction of Discussion you used term plant not mushroom, please correct this becuase you did not worked in this study on plant species. And also you provide us too long introduction of Discussion, please be more concidse and take into acount that you work on mushroom species.
Lines 187-189: This is generally well known, and on this place you should cite more papers which confirmed radical scavenging potential of mushroom polyphenolics
Line 191: You mentioned green tea, which is not relevant to this study. Please focus on the mushroom species you examined and explain the findings specifically for mushrooms, rather than discussing plants. I suggest removing any information that is not pertinent to this study. The references cited demonstrate the connection between phenolics and antioxidant and neuroprotective activities through the inhibition of oxidative stress. In all these articles, mushroom extracts were used, similar to your study.
Line 193: S. sanghuang not S.Sanghuang, please correct this.
Line 196: Again plant extracts…
Line 214-217: Please rewrite this, this is not good written and must be improved.
I must also highlight that you did not use any references specifically related to Sanghuangporous sanghuang. If you are discussing the ethanolic extract of S. sanghuang, you should compare your results with those from other studies on this species. At no point did you correlate your findings with available data on S. sanghuang.
Some of them I will copy you:
https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffphar.2023.1136897
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113434
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43886-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04868-7
https://doi.org/10.13346/j.mycosystema.160011
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29061195 (review paper with many summarized information)
CONCLUSION
You must rewrite all this segment of the manuscript.
Line 228: Did you make a mistake, maybe “University” not “Univergity”
I noticed that you did not obtain following:
Funding
Grant Disclosures
Competing Interests
Author Contributions
Data Availability
Supplemental Information
Here's a review with some minor suggestions for improvement:
(i)The scientific name "Sanghuangporus sanghuang" should be italicized throughout the text.
In the first sentence, consider changing "useful edible fungus" to "valuable medicinal fungus" to better reflect its primary use.
(ii)The phrase " recent researches" should be revised to "recent research" or "numerous studies" for better academic tone.
(ii)The citation "(Lu et al., 2024)" appears to be a future date. Ensure all citations are for published works.
In "Besides to these well known compounds," remove "to" and hyphenate "well-known."
(iv)The sentence "Given the complications and advance effects of natural products, there is a serious consideration of using chinese herbal medicines" needs revision for clarity and grammar". Consider: "Given the complex nature and potential benefits of natural products, there is increasing interest in the use of Chinese herbal medicines."
(v) Capitalize "Chinese" in "chinese herbal medicines."
(vi)The phrase "medicinal active ingredient site" could be changed to "primary source of medicinal active ingredients" for clarity.
(vii) Consider breaking the long sentence about extraction into two sentences for better readability.
In the final sentence, change "GC-MS study was also performed" to "GC-MS analysis was also conducted" for a more formal tone.
(viii)Ensure consistency in hyphenation (e.g., "anti-oxidative" vs "antidiabetic")
(i) The extraction process is clearly described, but specify the exact temperature for "room temperature"
(II) Specify the concentration of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent used.
(III) Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay:
Change "taked" to "measured" and Specify the concentration of TCA use
(iv)UPLC-MS Analyses:
Specify the gradient elution program
[1] The English language of this manuscript should be improved.
[2] Some things that are expressed in non-English should be expressed in English as much as possible because this is an international journal.
such as
Informal language: The phrase "It is also true that" is too casual for academic writing.
Grammatical error: "Numerous research have shown" should be "Numerous studies have shown" or "Numerous research studies have shown."
Inconsistent capitalization: "S. sanghuang" is capitalized inconsistently (compare with "S.Sanghuang" later in the text).
Punctuation errors: Missing commas in lists (e.g., "phenolics, flavonoids, terpenes, tocopherols and carotenoids" should have a comma before "and").
Spelling errors: "MarÌn" should likely be "Marín."
Vague statements: "Numerous research have shown that medicinal plants possess a wide range of pharmacological properties" lacks specificity.
Inconsistent formatting of citations: Some are in parentheses, others are not.
Redundancy: "Oxidative stress" is defined twice in close proximity.
Awkward phrasing: "The biological role that antioxidants play in medicinal plants is very important" could be more concise and specific.
Lack of transition between paragraphs: The shift from general discussion to S. sanghuang is abrupt.
Inconsistent abbreviation use: BMI is defined but BM is not.
Speculative conclusion: The final sentence about incorporating S. sanghuang into food lacks scientific rigor.
Missing spaces: "S.Sanghuang" should be "S. sanghuang."
Informal language in conclusion: "innumerable health advantage" is not appropriate for academic writing.
Certainly. Here are the main issues and mistakes in the original text:
Inconsistent formatting: Some numbers are presented with ± symbols, while others use different formats.
Grammatical errors: For example, "SEE was evaluated to determine the content of phenolics and flavonoids, as presented in Table 1" is awkwardly phrased.
Inconsistent use of units: Sometimes units are separated from values by a space, sometimes not.
Improper capitalization: Some words are unnecessarily capitalized (e.g., "Ferric-Reducing/Antioxidant Power").
Spelling errors: "Fenton's" is misspelled as "Fentonís" in some instances.
Informal language: Phrases like "We deduce that" are too casual for a scientific paper.
Lack of precision in some descriptions: For instance, "notable antioxidant activities" is vague.
Inconsistent use of abbreviations: Some terms are abbreviated without first being written in full.
Improper use of semicolons and commas in lists.
Incomplete sentences: The discussion section ends abruptly with "which are together known as anti".
Lack of clear structure: The results are not clearly separated into distinct sections with appropriate subheadings.
Inconsistent tense usage: The text switches between past and present tense.
Some redundancy in explanations, particularly in the antioxidant assay descriptions.
The primary question addressed by this research is the exploration of the total phenolic and flavonoid content present in the ethanol extract of Sanghuangporous sanghuang (S. sanghuang) and the assessment of its phytochemical properties, antioxidant activity, and DNA damage protection capabilities. The study's original contribution lies in its comprehensive analysis of S. sanghuang's ethanol extract, including the identification of its phenolic and flavonoid content and its potential as a functional food for health-conscious consumers. It addresses a specific gap in the field by investigating the mushroom's antioxidant properties and its protective effects on DNA damage, areas that have not been extensively explored for this particular mushroom species. In comparison to other published material, this study adds to the body of knowledge by providing detailed UPLC-MS metabolite profiling of S. sanghuang extract and evaluating its antioxidant capacity through various assays. The identification of specific bioactive compounds and their potential roles in antioxidant and anti-DNA damage activities contributes novel insights to the field of medicinal mycology.
The conclusions drawn by the authors are generally consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the manuscript. However, the authors should ensure that all main questions posed in the introduction are addressed by the experiments conducted. For instance, while the study identifies various bioactive compounds, the specific experiments linking these compounds to the observed antioxidant and DNA protective effects should be clearly outlined.
1The authors should consider enhancing the methodology by providing a more detailed description of the extraction process and the criteria used for selecting the bioactive compounds for analysis. Further controls, such as additional positive and negative controls in the antioxidant assays, could strengthen the validity of the findings.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
The article is well designed. It can fill a gap in the literature. Also, the applied methods are up-to-date. The findings are well emphasized. In addition, a fungus species was studied. But it was compared with plant species. Please discuss with fungus species. It can be published after corrections are made. Please review the attached file.
The article is well designed. It can fill a gap in the literature. Also, the applied methods are up-to-date. The findings are well emphasized. In addition, a fungus species was studied. But it was compared with plant species. Please discuss with fungus species. It can be published after corrections are made. Please review the attached file.
The article is well designed. It can fill a gap in the literature. Also, the applied methods are up-to-date. The findings are well emphasized. In addition, a fungus species was studied. But it was compared with plant species. Please discuss with fungus species. It can be published after corrections are made. Please review the attached file.
The article is well designed. It can fill a gap in the literature. Also, the applied methods are up-to-date. The findings are well emphasized. In addition, a fungus species was studied. But it was compared with plant species. Please discuss with fungus species. It can be published after corrections are made. Please review the attached file.
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.