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.
Thanks for addressing the reviewer's concerns.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have responded appropriately to the comments made and may be accepted for publication.
NA
NA
The authors have responded appropriately to the comments made and may be accepted for publication.
Please address all the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Authors must review and correct the English of the text.
The article must use technically correct words. For example, MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration, FICI, fractional inhibitory concentration index.
The introduction to the manuscript is very long, it should be more concise.
The CLSI does not recommend the use of PDB broth for susceptibility testing due to variability and poor reproducibility of results. The CLSI strongly recommends the use of RPMI broth with MOPS for susceptibility and checkerboard testing.
The authors are suggested to use this culture medium to perform the tests
The discussion of the manuscript is very long, it is recommended to review and summarize
The authors are suggested to review the toxicity of andrographolide and the combination of andrographolide with amphotericin B
NA
The manuscript generally follows PeerJ formatting standards.
The abstract is informative, though slightly wordy.
The introduction provides an appropriate overview of the clinical significance of fungal infections and contextualizes the rationale for using andrographolide.
The background is well supported by recent literature, including references to resistance mechanisms and combination therapy strategies. A strength of the paper is the detailed discussion of andrographolide’s known bioactivities.
Figures 1 and 2 are clear and appropriately annotated, supporting the experimental results effectively. Tables 1 and 2 concisely present the MIC/MFC data and combination outcomes. Figure legends are detailed and useful for standalone interpretation.
However, the title of Table 2 seems misleading. Need to reflect the combination study.
The authors clearly state the objective: to evaluate the antifungal activity of andrographolide alone and in combination with amphotericin B. This addresses a meaningful gap in the literature.
The experimental procedures, including microdilution, checkerboard assays, and INT-based viability assessment are appropriate and well described. Use of standard reference strains and controls (e.g., DMSO, sterility/growth wells) strengthens reproducibility.
Protocols are described with sufficient technical detail.
The findings are supported by consistent MIC/MFC trends across replicates. The inclusion of FICI values strengthens claims of synergy or additive effects. The authors conclude that andrographolide has promising antifungal properties, particularly in synergistic combinations. This is supported by the data. The conclusion rightly emphasizes the need for future work, especially regarding toxicity and clinical translation.
No comments
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.