Submited on: 23 Jul 2012 03:47:58 PM GMT
Published on: 31 Jul 2012 06:25:31 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claimed that Ocimum canum possess high antioxidant potential and reversed damaging oxidative conditions associated with ischeamic injury in rats. The supposedly antioxidant properties of the O. canum extracts was due to the presence of phenolics. The O. canum extracts possess radical scavenging activities and improved hepatic functions following the consequences of ischeamic injury


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims are not novel. The antioxidative potential and hepatoprotective capabilities of O. canum have been previously reported by other authors e.g. P. Caturvedi et al (2008). It also should be noted that plants extracts have been shown to possess varying degree of antioxidant potential attributable to the presence of the phytoconstituents. So it is not enough for authors to tell the radical scavenging or antioxidant properties of O. canum without identifying the phytochemical responsible. Moreso, that previous studies in this have reported the antioxidant activities of O. canum extracts.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No. Authors failed to discuss the results in the proper context of previous claims on the antioxidant  and hepatoprotective potentials of O. canum.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results do not show how the hepatic index markers for the different groups differ significantly. If the induction of ischeamic reperfusion caused lipid peroxidation and consequent rise in marker enzymes, there should be clarity in presenting data. As presented here, no significant difference exist between the ischeamic reperfusion group and those treated with O. canum.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The procedures are explicitly presented.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    If authors could improve the way data were presented, it would aid clarity. For instance, presenting the same data in tables and figures is not appropriate. I suggest the use of figures may be better. Also, the histopathology micrographs do not contain annotations as to what happened in each of those. The data analysis was not properly presented. If authors used statistical methods to analyse, this should reflect in the presentation of figures.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. The paper has only added to the compedium of knowledge that crude extracts of plants have antioxidant and hepatoprotective potentials. We will be more interested in identifying or isolating the principles that may be responsible for these actions.


  • Other Comments:

    Authors made some speculations. It is inappropriate to state that the antioxidant activity of O.canum was due to the presence of phenolics. Authors used crude extracts for study and no data exist in study to show that phenolic fractions were isolated and chracterised with fingerprints.

     

    Authors should discuss results in the context of previous reports on the subject matter.

     

    Also, the English language in text needs to be revised to allow for more clarity.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia [Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002214
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Minor changes
Posted by Dr. Mohamed Ashour on 28 Aug 2012 05:35:00 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The main claim of the manuscript is measuring the antioxidant activity of Ocimum canum leaves extract and its potential to prevent hepatic ischemia, which is quite relevant.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. 

    The protective effects of polyphenols from jujube peel (Ziziphus Jujube Mill) on isoproterenol-induced myocardial ischemia and aluminum-induced oxidative damage in rats. Food Chem Toxicol (2012), 50: 1302-8.

     

    Role of Ocimum basilicum L. in prevention of ischemia and reperfusion-induced cerebral damage, and motor dysfunctions in mice brain. J Ethnopharmacol (2011), 137: 1360-5.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not available.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The manuscript requires a thorough check by a native speaker English to avoid many syntactic and typo mistakes.

     

    In general: to plot the standard drug (ascorbic acid) in the same curve with the extract will cause a complete misleading, because at the tested doses of the standard, a plateau behavior is seen, which give false apparent IC50 values. So, either a dose-response curve for the standard alone in both experiments or at least two low doses (10, 100 microgram/ml) are required.

     

    Although it is written that statistical analyses were done but no indication in the form of stars or letters on graphs or tables, which will improve the quality of the results to a great extent.

     

    The structures of the previously isolated compounds from the plant will be very helpful for understanding of general audience.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes, anti-oxidents and cell damage by ROS are very interesting in preventation of many diseases.


  • Other Comments:

    Prviously mentioned.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Mohamed L. Ashour, Mahmoud Z. El-Readi, Ahmed Tahrani, Safaa Eid and Michael Wink. A novel cytotoxic aryltetraline lactone from Bupleurum marginatum (Apiaceae). Phytochem Lett 2012; 5: 387-392

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Ashour M .Minor changes[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002203
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Antioxidant properties of ocimum canum in terms of prevention of hepatic is chemia. If their findings are confirmed, which may be used as medicine


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    It Is an Good Attempt to charecterize the propertise of the plant ,unless it tested on mammalian modeland FDAprocedure tobe followed to confirm that as medicine


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes, They Can Perform Some Experiments to confirm and charecterise it by coloum chromotography,NMR studies,evaluvation procedure etc


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Still more requireed to validate the results


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    IAEC approval number may be quoted


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    The outcome of the article is lacking proper conclusion.It is only prelimnary attempt for the establishment of the herb as medicine

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have the experience in discussing the similar area in many doctral commitee

  • How to cite:  Rajan S .Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002202
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in  Hepatic Ischaemia model. Recntly most of the pathophysiology of diseases are attributed to oxidative stress, in this context this article is quite important.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Good paper with novel objectives. However the authors should have given little bit more attention to avoid the spellin mistakes, which are plenty. Conclusion part is missing, which is an important section of an article. Datas presented in tables should not be repeated in graphical presentation.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes. As oxidative stess is responsible for most of the disease pathology.


  • Other Comments:

    1. Conclusion part is missing
    2. Same Datas  should not be presented in both tabular and graphical presentation
    3. Interpretence of data should not be presented in Result section
    4. Grammatical mistakes should be checked before submittingScientific information should be reveiwed thourghly A list or references should be added by the end of the paper It might be worth adding a table  containing the medicinal plants and their applications Typing and gramatic errors should be corrected. Results of relevant publications should be discussed and justified

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Pradhan S .Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum Canum Hydro-Alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002154
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Ma'am, Warm regards...!!! Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I would like to bring to your kind notice that the spelling errors which you have mentioned in the the PDF version of the article is basically the errors in HTML codes which appear as "?" in the paper. I have contacted the server and they will take care about the matter. As per conclusion, again it is the server error as you might notice that there is already a heading "CONCLUSION" present, but not cited. I would very soon upload the corrected version. Thank you for your precious time in reviewing the paper. With regards Saiprasanna
Responded by Mrs. Saiprasanna Behera on 03 Aug 2012 09:24:19 AM