Submited on: 14 Feb 2012 06:58:04 AM GMT
Published on: 14 Feb 2012 10:30:39 AM GMT

 There are many casual errors which can be avoided to improve the quality of the manuscript.


This is a major concern from the scientific followers and readers perspective. It is quite reasonable that the author discusses that the anti-nutrient in unprocessed soy could evoke oxidative stress based impairment of sperm plasma membrane and its function (motility).  If this anti-nutrient can induce oxidative stress, it is expected to induce oxidative burst in the female reproductive system also. I do not presume that this anti-nutrient, isoflavone’s effect on inducing oxidative stress is sex (male) specific, else generic. It is to be noted that Wang et al(2006) have shown that arsenic induced oxidative stress can result in uterine cell degeneration.  Given this scenario, how the author could conclude that the same anti-nutrient which can induce oxidative stress can be suggested to be beneficial in women.  It would be good if the author clarifies this.

 

In soytreated group (10%), Table 1 shows that the weight of the seminal vesicle is significantly increased by ~2.5 fold, however the results and the interpretation is stated to be decreased. This is confounding. 

 

The whole study is conducted in male rats.  But the conclusion has wholly focussed on health benefits related to women. Generally, conclusion needs to be drawn for the results generated in a selected study. 

 

In discussion section, page 4: the author has discussed sperm count, the testosterone and FSH leves to be P>0.05  (which typically means one would fail to reject the null hypothesis).  

  • competing interests: No
  • Invited by the author to make a review on this article? :
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have almost 13 years of research experience in oxidative stress field.

  • Publications in the same or a related area of science: No
  • References: None
 
Report abuse