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 authors have addressed all the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the reviewers' suggestions and provide a revised version.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript reports interesting data and is properly written.
The experiments are sound, but some improvements can be made to the methodology (see section 4 for specific comments).
The data and conclusions are sound.
Manuscript titled “Chaetomium globosum from Alisma orientale (Sam.) Juzep. enhances the antioxidative stress capacity of Caenorhabditis elegans” reports various analysis about the effects of Chaetomium globosum ethyl acetate extract, on various parameters of the nematode C. elegans. There are some comments and suggestions for the authors:
1. Section 2.1 provides minimal explanation about how the samples were collected. For example, line 86 states that the fungus was isolated from Alisma orientale; please consider providing additional information, such as any selection criteria or any data relevant to sample collection.
2. Line 115 states that CGE was administered at 20, 60 and 100 ug/mL for 3 days. Can the authors provide a brief justification for why they chose these specific treatment conditions? Particularly since the non-toxic range was 10-200 ug/mL, as mentioned in line 190.
3. Please define “DCFH-DA” in line 143.
4. In section 2.9, please provide additional information about the method, equipment, reagents or experimental conditions that could be relevant to mention, since the section only states that the analysis was made but no other information is provided. Some methodological data is specified in section 3.7.1, which may be more appropriate to mention here instead.
5. Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 report results for GO and KEGG enrichment analyses, however, these are not cited in materials and methods, please mention them there.
6. Lines 394-397 of the conclusion repeat “of nematodes” three times, please state this only once.
7. Please remove the declaration in lines 472-473, which appears to be for another journal.
8. In figure 1, both its legend and the figure itself, please change to “Juglone” (a “g” is missing).
9. On the Y axes of figure 2, please change to “mg prot” (add a space between the two words).
10. On the legends of figures 1-5, please define “Res” and indicate what compound the concentrations 20, 60 and 100 ug/mL are referring to. This will make them unambitious and understandable on their own.
In this study, the authors utilized the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans as a model organism to assess the antioxidant capacity of an extract derived from the supernatant of a Chaetomium globosum culture, isolated from the plant Alisma orientale. The extract was prepared using ethyl acetate extraction.
The study was well-conducted and shows promising results regarding the antioxidant capacity of the extract.
The materials and methods were described with sufficient detail and information to allow replication.
All the data supporting the study have been provided; they are robust and statistically well analyzed. Likewise, the conclusions are articulated, appropriately connected to the original research question, and limited to the interpretation of the results.
Minor comments:
- Line 60-63: Rewrite and delete repeated sentences.
- Line 91: Indicate the concentration of the extract with respect to the original volume of the culture.
- Lines 130, 140, and 153: Indicate the concentration of CGE used in the experiment
- Lines 263-266: Delete repeated sentences
- Line 275: change “egulation” to “regulation”
- Line 294: Consider changing the word "stress" by "capacity" or "response"
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.