Dear Editor
Wishes and greetings!
Thank you for sending our article for revision. Herewith we are sending the revised manuscript
along with list of corrections carried out as suggested by the reviewers. The corrections have
been indicated in bold letter. Kindly consider our manuscript for publications.
Thank you
With regards
Dr.Naif Abdullah-Al-Dhabi
Authors Response to Reviewers' comments
Reviewer's report 1
Q1. Background: The section needs revision to improve the language.
Answer: We have revised this section and improved the language.
Q2. Methods: Why the author did not perform experiments for other major compounds in the
plants? What was the reason to select this compound?
Answer: Indirubin was selected as a marker since it was a well known compound. The
HPLC of the chloroform extract of the fruits was performed as a finger print for
standardization. This is the first report of the standardization of the chloroform extract
together with quantification of a marker. This will be useful for standardization in quality
control. We did not choose other compounds since we found Indirubin to be one of the
major compound.
Q3. Introduction
Q3.1 In this section after Reference No. 3 the author says that this plant possesses antifungal
activity along with other important activities, so if the antifungal activity is already known and
reported then what was the reason to screen it again for the said activity. Needs justification.
Answer: The antifungal activity refers to the traditional use of the plant (Reference 4
included). There is no experimental validation for the claim.
Q3.2 The references [4-9] given for this section support the chemical constituents of the plant
they are not supporting the biological screening. The author needs to provide proper reference(s).
Answer: Proper references are included.
Q4. Methodology
Microbial organisms
Q4.1 The author is suggested to use a separate subheading for each type of
microorganisms i.e.
Gram positive bacteria: ---------------------------Gram Negative bacteria: --------------------------Clinical isolates: -------------------------------------Fungi: ---------------------------------------------------Answer: We have included separate subheadings.
Q4.2 The author needs to avoid the repetitions of full name along with abbreviated form. Once
the author used full name along with abbreviated form i.e. Muller Hilton Agar (MHA), then next
time he should use only the recommended abbreviated form i. e MHA. Correct such type of
errors throughout the manuscript.
Answer: Repetitions of full names are modified.
Q4.3 In-vitro Antimicrobial activity
Specific amount of the compound…………………… the author needs to justify it either he used
compounds isolated from the selected plant species or he used the crude extract?
Answer: We used chloroform extract of Couroupita guianensis Aubl. fruit for isolation of
compound.
Q4.4 the author needs to divide this section into: antibacterial activity and Antifungal activity
Further I will strongly recommend the following research articles for the above
two activities.
1. Anti-inflammatory and Enzyme inhibitory activities of crude extract and a new
pterocarpan isolated from the aerial parts of Vitex agnus castus. Biotechnology
journal, 5(11) 1207-1215.
2. Phytotoxic, Antibacterial and Heameagglutination activities of the aerial parts
of Myrsine africana. African journal of Biotechnology. 10(1): 97-102.
3. Insecticidal, Cytotoxic, Antifungal and Nitric oxide free radical scavenging
activities of Myrsine africana. African journal of Biotechnology. 10(8): 1448-1453.
Answer: We have tested only yeast like organism not filamentous fungi. So, that we used
same method. We accept your suggestion in our future articles.
Q.Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract
1.1 Results: “Weak activity” should be replaced by “low activity“.
Answer: It has been corrected
Q.1.2 “0 mm to 26 mm” should be replaced by 0 to 26 mm
Answer: Corrected
Q.1.3 For the first time the name of the microorganism used to screen the fruit
extract should not be in abbreviated form like “P. aeruginosa” it should be
“Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Answer: Corrected
Q.1.4 “Pseudomonas aueroginosa” needs to be replaced by “Pseudomonas
aeruginosa” for spelling correction throughout the manuscript.
Answer: Corrected
Q.2. Material and Methods
2.1 The species was identified by a taxonomist ………. Should be like that “the
Species was identified by a plant taxonomist
Answer: Corrected
Q.2.2 “48 h” should be like “48 hrs”. Correct the same throughout the manuscript.
Answer: Corrected
Q.2.3 Microbial Organisms
There is no need to write “methicillin resistant” with “MRSA” delete it. Same is
case with “ESBL”
Answer: Corrected
Q. Results and Discussion
2.4 This sections needs to be checked for the typographic and grammatical
errors by a native author
Answer: Results and discussion part completely revised and it is indicated in bold letters
2.5 References
Page number(s) are missing in reference No: 1, 13
Answer: Corrected
Q. Reference No. 2 is incomplete.
Answer: Corrected
Q.Title of reference No. 21 should be bold.
Answer: Corrected
Q.Need a space between 200672 i. e. 2006, 72, in reference No. 31
Answer: Corrected
Q.Discretionary Revisions
The author needs to add the inhibitory effect of negative control [respective
Organic solvent(s)] in table No. 1 and 2.
Answer: Corrected and included
Q.Title of table No. 1 is suggested to be “Antimicrobial activity of the chloroform
extract of C. guianensis fruits.”
Answer: Corrected and included
Q.Title of table No. 2 is suggested to be “Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of the
chloroform extract of C. guianensis against M. Tuberculosis
Answer: Corrected and included
Reviewer's report: 2
The manuscript has been completely revised as per suggestions of reviewers comments
Q1. M&M’s antimicrobial assay are unclear. The use of couropita guanenesis extracts and the
concentration tested to determine its antimicrobial activity is unclear. Figure state 5mg/ml of the
extract was used which is very high and no therapeutic value but the volume of the extract used
is not mentioned. Solvent control is missing and n value is missing.
Answer: Solvent control and n (N=2) value are included in the revised manuscript. We
have used 5mg/mL concentration since the total extract was tested. We have used the
concentrations as per literature.
Q2. Use of CFU/mL in M&M’s biofilm formation is inappropriate. Fig.1 (D) must show positive
and negative controls. Stats should be performed and show the significance of your results. N
value is missing, standard error/deviation should be explained properly and describe in detail
calculation of % biofilm inhibitory concentration (BIC).
Answer: The necessary corrections are included in the revised manuscript.
Q3. Mycobacterium assay used 64µg/ml whereas for antimicrobial assay 5mg/ml is confusing !!!
Answer: We wanted to test only at low concentrations for M. tuberculosis since activity at
higher concentration is not of much value for drug development.
Q4. Figure legends are poorly explained. E.g., figure 3, which peak is of indirubin and which one
is for Couroupita guanensis. Axis and titles should be explained. Level of interest: An article
whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Quality of written
English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Statistical review: Yes, but I do
not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics.
Answer: The necessary corrections are included in the revised manuscript. Throughout the
manuscript, the English corrections have been carried out.
Reviewer's report: 3
Q1. The unit ‘L’ should be indicated in capital letter.
Answer: ‘L’ is corrected in capital letter.
Q2. In materials and methods and Table 1, Bacillus subtilis is Gram negative bacteria. But
Bacillus subtilis is Gram positive bacteria. Please see Brock Biology of Microorganisms,
Michael T. Madigan, John M. Martinko, Jack Parker
Answer: Bacillus subtilis is changed into Gram positive bacterium.
Q3. The results were not expressed in numerical data. Please express the results also in
numerical data in results and discussion.
Answer: Appropriate numerical data are included in the “results and discussion” portion.
Q4. All abbreviations should be written in the names of.
Answer: Abbreviations are included.
Q5. Space after each word should be left
Answer: Space is provided after each word.
Q6. There are problems with the comparison of the results with a control group
Answer: The results are compared with control in the revised manuscript.
Q7.The references writing should be checked. There are errors in references.
Answer: Errors in the references are corrected.