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.
Thank you.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment
No comment
Figures 3-5: the names of the species should be written in small letters.
Please consider the raised comments from both reviewers
Dear Editor,
The authors made a good effort to address all the raised concerns and suggestions. However, there are still several areas where the manuscript could be further improved to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor.
Review methodology:
The methodology is appropriate. The authors clearly state the databases searched (Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and PubMed) and the keywords used. However, the methodology section could benefit from stating the period covered (e.g., publications between which years?) and inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., only peer-reviewed articles? Languages?).
Introduction
Please avoid repetition of general statements. For example, the ecological importance of Tamarix for soil stabilization and erosion control is repeated in lines 82–84 and again in lines 96–97.
The aim of the review is restated multiple times throughout the Introduction.
For clarity and conciseness, the authors may consider merging all statements of purpose into a single, coherent paragraph at the end of the introduction.
Lines 89–90, 148–150, 151–156, and 157–164: The geographical distribution of Tamarix species in Kazakhstan is discussed in detail twice. First in the Introduction (Lines 56–78), and again in the "Geographical distribution" section, which may lead to redundancy. I recommend summarizing the distribution in the Introduction in 2–3 sentences and reserve the full detailed description for the "Geographical Distribution" section to improve clarity and avoid repetition.
In lines 96–114; 115–123: This section includes excessive ethnomedicinal details (e.g., specific diseases treated) and historical taxonomy discussions that could be either placed in a dedicated section or briefly summarized.
Please improve logical flow of content (Lines 85–95): In this section, the authors shift rapidly between several topics. They begin by discussing the phytochemical richness and biological activities of Tamarix species (Lines 85–88), then state the objective of the review (Line 89), followed by pharmacological findings from Kazakhstan (Lines 91–93), and finally refer to taxonomic complexity (Lines 94–95). These topics are presented without a logical sequence or clear transitions, which disrupts the coherence of the narrative.
For better readability, I suggest reorganizing the content of the introduction into clear thematic blocks, starting with general information on Tamarix (taxonomy and distribution), followed by its ecological importance in Kazakhstan, traditional and medicinal uses, identification of knowledge gaps, and concluding with a concise statement of the study's purpose.
Phytochemical Compounds Section (Lines 237–282)
In Lines 250–256; 273–279: Please replace less formal terms with precise scientific language (e.g., you can use “identified” instead of “procured”).
In Lines 243–244, 260–264, 270–271, 280–28: Some compounds are linked to biological activities (e.g., antioxidant, anti-inflammatory), while others are presented without context. Some effects are stated without specific references. Please, provide appropriate citations for all mentioned biological activities.
In lines 242, 252, 267, 275: Reference groupings are sometimes non-sequential or repeated, e.g., [10, 64, 28, 70–84].
In the antibacterial section
Throughout the section, descriptions of extract types, bacterial strains, and methodological details (e.g., extract concentrations, solvents used, control treatments) are often lacking or insufficiently reported.
Lines 365–372: The sentence "the T. ramosissima bark extract has demonstrated significantly more significant inhibitory activity..." is repetitive and unclear. Also, Listeria monocytogenes is not equivalent to Sarcina castellani or Staphylococcus aureus.
In lines 385–388: Statements such as “higher efficacy than erythromycin” require more rigorous context, what concentration of antibiotic was used?
In lines 375–378: The sentence "...bacterial and fungal pathogens (e.g., Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Aspergillus niger) discovered within the ethyl acetate and water-acetone extracts of T. ramosissima..." is confusing. It implies that pathogens were isolated from the plant extracts, rather than tested against them in antimicrobial assays.
Antileishmanial Activity
The phrase "T. ramosissima could serve as a potential global leader plant" is exaggerated and unscientific. Also, the methodology and outcomes are not sufficiently described (e.g., IC₅₀ values, tested concentrations, strain susceptibility).
ACE Inhibition and Antiplatelet Activity
This section lacks methodological clarity and contextual explanation. For instance: What model or assay was used for clot lysis? What are the reference controls (e.g., aspirin, captopril)?
The language is clear. The review covers the latest publications in this field.
Structure conforms to PeerJ standards.
The conclusions are clearly formulated and related to the original research question.
1. The authors have made almost all changes to the questions I asked. However, I would like to note that the regional level is Kazakhstan and Central Asia, not the Plantarium. (line 170).
2. I also want to note that among Tamarix species distributed in Kazakhstan one species is listed in the Red Book of Kazakhstan (2014) (Tamarix androssowii) which increases the status of the genus and its importance for Kazakhstan, not only to use the resources and phytochemical properties of the genus, but also to preserve rare species.
3. Line 660 Reference: Rachkovskaya, Khramtsov V.N., Volkova
4. Figures 3-5: the names of the species should be written in small letters.
Conclusion: after correcting the errors, the manuscript can be published.
Please consider the comments from both reviewers.
**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.
Dear Editor,
I have had the opportunity of reviewing the manuscript titled "Morphological, Phytochemical, and Pharmacological Properties of the Genus Tamarix in Kazakhstan Species: A Review." The authors did a commendable effort in drafting this review. However, I have several remarks and suggestions that may help improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
First of all, the manuscript's English would benefit from refinement and corrections for clarity and readability. Some sentences are unclear and ambiguous, failing to convey the intended meaning. Examples where the language could be improved include lines 50, 55, 56, 57, 66, and 285, etc. The authors may also use 'including' or 'such as' instead of parentheses for better readability. The authors also make a significant effort to correctly introduce the topic. However, there is a lot of redundant information such as in line 60 (plants are also pivotal in soil stabilization and erosion prevention). Additionally, the aim of the review is mentioned twice. Likewise, the authors do not clearly highlight the novelty of this review compared to previously published ones:
Bahramsoltani, R., Kalkhorani, M., Zaidi, S. M. A., Farzaei, M. H., & Rahimi, R. (2020). The genus Tamarix: Traditional uses, phytochemistry, and pharmacology. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 246, 112245.
Li, F., Xie, W., Ding, X., Xu, K., & Fu, X. (2024). Phytochemical and pharmacological properties of the genus Tamarix: a comprehensive review. Archives of Pharmacal Research, 47(5), 410-441.
No comment
• As the authors have focused solely on Tamarix species found in Kazakhstan's flora, I suggest adding a paragraph in which the authors may discuss the traditional/ethnopharmacological uses based on ethnobotanical studies conducted merely in Kazakhstan. Which species are most commonly used? What forms of preparation are employed? Which plant parts are most utilized? What are the widely treated ailments in Kazakhstan’s folk medicine system? By doing this, the authors may conclude which traditional uses are well-supported by in vitro/in vivo studies and which ones require further investigation (To be added in the conclusion). If these traditional uses are well-supported, are there specific compounds that may be responsible for these activities?
• Please add clear perspectives in the conclusion. For example, based on the analysis of these data, which species have been extensively studied, and which require further attention? Which bioactivities appear promising, and why? Are there potential applications (e.g., agriculture, food, etc.). Additionally, do you have any specific recommendations for resolving controversial taxonomic classifications?
• Regarding phytochemistry, are there any studies on the plant's primary metabolites, including amino acids, vitamins, fatty acids, minerals, etc.? Also, the authors have overlooked volatile secondary metabolites. They may consider adding a section discussing the chemical composition of the essential oils from these species, analyzing their main compounds, and comparing them with species from other regions worldwide. What could explain these differences? Could these differences impact biological activities? The authors also mention some special compounds from the genus, including ramosissimin and tamaractam. Is there any information available about their biological activities/Toxicity?
• In the antibacterial activity section (line 277), please specify which extract (e.g., aqueous, ethanolic). Has this extract been subjected to analysis for its chemical composition? Did the authors link the observed activity to specific compounds or synergistic action?
• Please remove the translation site reference (‘Translated with DeepL.com (free version)’) from line 123.
• In line 165 (Geographical distribution), the authors may discuss the geographical distribution of Tamarix species within Kazakhstan's territory. Which species are most abundant? Are there any threatened species among them?
• Please use an uppercase 'L' for liter (mL instead of ml)
• In line 278, please italicize Listeria monocytogenes
• In lines, 124, 130, 384, please italicize Tamarix.
• In line 291, 'spp.' should not be italicized, please check throughout the antibacterial section.
• In line 193, please substitute 'exhibited' with 'shown'.
The language is clear for me, I cannot judge the professionalism of the translation, because I am not a native speaker. But I understand that translated with DeepL.com is not enough (line 123).
The introduction is standard, reflecting the state of knowledge of the genus Tamarix and various aspects of its study with an emphasis on the use of its pharmacological properties. It is indicated that there are 13 endemic species in Kazakhstan (124 line), but this is not correct. All the species native to Kazakhstan have a wide geographical distribution, there are no any endemics. It is also not taken into account that Tamarix rossowii (Mochalov, 1986) has been added and included in the Red Book of Kazakhstan (2014).
Structure conforms to PeerJ standards.
The review have interest, especially in the field of pharmacology.
The review covers the latest publications in this field, but some important ones are missing.
Introduction adequately introduces the
subject and makes the audience and motivation clear.
The topic is fully covered, and according to the Plant of the World online (https://powo.science.kew.org/), there are 73 accepted species, not over 85. The monograph by Bernard R. Baum (1978), which highlights the morphological, geographical and taxonomic features of the Tamarix genus, is missing. Critical monograph by Abilov Zh., Sultanova N. “Chemical composition and biological activity of plants of the genus Tamarix” (Almaty: Kazakh University, 2018. 254 pp.) is also missing
I repeat that (line 124), it is incorrectly noted that tamarix species are endemic to Kazakhstan. On lines 156-161, one more species is missing. Pharmacological features are well collected and described, but in the field of morphological data, these are standard descriptions given in Flora of Kazakhstan and phytochemical data.
Article content is within the Aims and Scope of the journal.
The examination is thorough, especially pharmacological potential. It should be noted that in Table 1 the photos are provided from the Plantarium website without reference to the authors.
The methods are standard. There is not enough information from the POWO website for a complete picture.
The methodology is consistent with a comprehensive coverage of the subject, but there are not enough links to several sources and to the website of the POWO, in which synonyms are different than in the Plantarium, and T. karelinii is not a hybrid, but an accepted species. An analysis of the data from these two sites is not provided, but it may be useful for assessing the current taxonomy of the species.
The sources are quoted adequately. There is not enough information from the POWO website for a complete picture. Monograph of Abilov Zh., Sultanova N. “Chemical composition and biological activity of plants of the genus Tamarix” is missing.
Sections and subsections are logically organized
Conclusions are insufficient, it is necessary to focus on those issues that have already been studied, which species growing in Kazakhstan are the most studied, which compounds have been obtained and what remains to be investigated.
The objectives in the Introduction were not clearly stated. I cannot agree that the review contributes to the study of the taxonomy of the species, as the standard morphological characteristics are given.
The directions of future research should be more clearly outlined.
1) Table 1: there are no references to the authors of the photo, there is no a capsule in the morphological description of the species, which is also important for identification the species.
2) The article does not contain links to a book “Aralkum – a Man-Made Desert “ (Breckle et al., 2012), which contains a list of Tamarix species and its use in afforestation on the dry seabed of the Aral Sea to combat desertification.
3) Table 2: The floristic zoning of Kazakhstan is used for the geographical distribution of species, but there is no reference to it.
4) Line 457: incorrect pages in a reference.
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.