雜志審稿模板總結(jié)學(xué)習(xí)20220610-3

Identification and Purification of Potential Bioactive Peptide of Moringa oleifera Seed Extracts

Published in?Plants?in November, 2020

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study was to investigate the antibacterial and anticoagulant activity of Moringa (Moringa oleifera) seed extracts and coagulant protein for their potential application in water treatment. Pathogenic microorganisms were obtained from Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, India. Bacterial cell aggregation and growth kinetics studies were employed for six bacterial strains with different concentrations of seed extracts and coagulant protein. Moringa seed extract and coagulant protein showed cell aggregation against six bacterial strains, whereas seed extract alone showed growth inhibition of all six bacterial strains for up to 6 h, compared to that of control. Escherichia coli and Salmonella para typhi B did not develop resistance against coagulant protein. The results imply that Moringa oleifera is likely an efficient low-molecular bioactive peptide (with <7.5 kDa plant-based coagulant and antimicrobial peptides, confirmed by applying amino acid sequences), using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and HPLC, with the corresponding sequences from Napin-1A peptide posing different degrees of antibacterial activity against different pathogenic organisms.

PRE-PUBLICATION REVIEW2020

Identification and purification of potential bioactive peptide of Moringa oleifera seed extracts Manuscript ID: plants-929926 Brief Summary: The study reports antibacterial and anti-coagulant activity of Moringa (Moringa oleifera) seed extracts and coagulant protein for their potential application in water treatment. The results indicate that Moringa olifera is likely to have efficient low molecular bioactive peptide <7.5 Kda plant based coagulant and antimicrobial peptides mimic Napin-1A peptide confirmed through LC-MS and HPLC. Broad comments The aim of this study was to investigate the antibacterial effect of Moringa seed extracts and coagulant protein against thirteen different clinical pathogens isolated from patients sample in India Specific comments to Authors Though the article communicates the main theme as reported in Abstract, however there are some errors in phrasing the sentences, common typo errors which needs to be attended and article needs minor revision as follows 1. Since the study involves use of strains collected from patient samples, Ethics approval for the study to be declared as study involves human subjects. 2. Page 1; L15- change “to identification” to “ to identify” would be appropriate to use 3. Introduction: The first reference cited in the article refers to important statistics and is too old to cite here. Authors need to quote from trusted sources like WHO or approved bodies with details on access. 4. Materials and Methods: Page 2; L79-chellaiah-typo error; CFS-elaborate for first time; Page 2:L84- Authors refer the coagulant protein was tested against thirteen different clinical pathogens and here they refer only six strains. Authors need to clarify this statement. Furthermore, were these organisms are isolated as said in Abstract ? If yes, it is to be described in methods section appropriately which is missing. 5. Page 3:L94; 2.4 section-add briefly before method is described for better understanding to the audience. 6. Section 2.5 method needs to be supported with proper reference for repetition of experimental protocol. 7. Spacing- should be checked for common typo errors elsewhere in the text/MS 8. Figure 1 legend should be amended. CE, CP should be noted in foot notes. 9. Figure 3 legend refers three strains only. In text, why it is referred as six strains? Authors need to support their findings. 10. Section 3.2.2 : The MIC and MBC results discuss only E coli, why authors failed to address the observation of Salmonella typhimurium A, S paratyphi A, S paratyphi B, Shigella flexneri and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Authors need to clarify. 11. Page 7: L223. Table 1 missing 12. Page 10;L293-change “investigation”- to investigated

POST-PUBLICATION REVIEWDEC 2020

The study reports antibacterial and anti-coagulant activity of Moringa (Moringa oleifera) seed extracts and coagulant protein for their potential application in water treatment. The results indicate that Moringa olifera is likely to have efficient low molecular bioactive peptide <7.5 Kda plant based coagulant and antimicrobial peptides mimic Napin-1A peptide confirmed through LC-MS and HPLC

Major and minor points?Though the article communicates the main theme as reported in Abstract, however there are some errors in phrasing the sentences, common typo errors which needs to be attended and article needs minor revision as follows 1. Since the study involves use of strains collected from patient samples, Ethics approval for the study to be declared as study involves human subjects. 2. Page 1; L15- change “to identification” to “ to identify” would be appropriate to use 3. Introduction: The first reference cited in the article refers to important statistics and is too old to cite here. Authors need to quote from trusted sources like WHO or approved bodies with details on access. 4. Materials and Methods: Page 2; L79-chellaiah-typo error; CFS-elaborate for first time; Page 2:L84- Authors refer the coagulant protein was tested against thirteen different clinical pathogens and here they refer only six strains. Authors need to clarify this statement. Furthermore, were these organisms are isolated as said in Abstract ? If yes, it is to be described in methods section appropriately which is missing. 5. Page 3:L94; 2.4 section-add briefly before method is described for better understanding to the audience. 6. Section 2.5 method needs to be supported with proper reference for repetition of experimental protocol. 7. Spacing- should be checked for common typo errors elsewhere in the text/MS 8. Figure 1 legend should be amended. CE, CP should be noted in foot notes. 9. Figure 3 legend refers three strains only. In text, why it is referred as six strains? Authors need to support their findings. 10. Section 3.2.2 : The MIC and MBC results discuss only E coli, why authors failed to address the observation of Salmonella typhimurium A, S paratyphi A, S paratyphi B, Shigella flexneri and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Authors need to clarify. 11. Page 7: L223. Table 1 missing 12. Page 10;L293-change “investigation”- to investigated