Submited on: 25 May 2015 05:57:10 AM GMT
Published on: 25 May 2015 09:23:26 AM GMT
 
PHS760 Review #1
Posted by Mr. James T Isaacs on 02 Nov 2017 02:25:33 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    As indicated in the title of the article, the authors sought to evaluate the antibacterial activity of an alcohol extract taken from the peel of a fruit produced by Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels. In this article, the Kirby-Bauer method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of the extract against four ATCC bacterial strains, which included S. enteritidis, E. coli, E. aerogenes, and S. aureus. From the testing that was performed, it was determined that the alcohol extract from Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels showed no antibacterial activity against S. enteritidis, E. coli, and E. aerogenes. Dose-dependent inhibition was observed for S. aureus but statistical analysis using the Tukey test determined that these results were not statistically significant. The results obtained by the authors are important to the fields of microbiology and medicine, where research regarding natural products that display antimicrobial action is in high demand due to the increasing prevalence of microbial resistance.


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

    The claims presented in this article seem to coincide with a regional initiative to determine the pharmacologic properties of extracts obtained from Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels. This article seems to expand upon the premise of a previous article, listed as #7 in the references, which also evaluated the antimicrobial activity of alcohol extracts from Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels.


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

    While this article was published in 2015, it seems that the primary surge of interest in evaluating the pharmacology of alcohol extracts from Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels occurred from roughly 2000 - 2010. Thus, while this article is current, it seems that more recent studies involving alcohol extracts of Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels focus on evaluating antioxidant properties.


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

    The results presented in this article appear to have been collected with due diligence, as the testing used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of the extract was performed in triplicate. Further evidence in the form of figures displaying the zones of inhibition that were observed for each bacterial strain may be useful in strengthening the claims.


  • 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?

    The authors state that modifications were used for "Determination of Loss on Drying" from the Brazilian Pharmacopoeia V, but the actual modifications themselves are not disclosed.


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

    It is thought that the authors provide sufficient details regarding the methods that were used in this article. The preparation of alcohol extracts from plant materials and the Kirby-Bauer method are well-known and respected in the microbiology and natural products community. Thus, the methods used in this article are likely to produce reproducible results.


  • 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?

    I believe that the article may be improved by comparing the antimicrobial activity of extracts from Syzygium Cumini (L.) - Skeels using different extractors, reevaluating the antimicrobial activity of the extract on S. aureus, and perhaps expanding the study to include additional gram-positive strains since the extract may have some activity on S. aureus. I believe that this additional work would expand upon the topic of the original publication while remaining relevant to the initial intentions of the authors. These additions would also provide a more complete analysis of the antimicrobial activity by including additional bacterial strains.


  • 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?

    I believe that the authors would have to expand upon the original premise of this publication to include more extracts and more bacterial strains to provide a more complete analysis for it to have a significant impact in the field.


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

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

    I am a PharmD/PhD student at the University of Kentucky with previous experience using the Kirby-Bauer method to measure the antimicrobial activity of compounds.

  • How to cite:  Isaacs J T.PHS760 Review #1[Review of the article 'Evaluation antibacterial activity in vitro of the ethanol extract from the peel fruit of Syzygium cumini (L.) - Skeels ' by Jose Fragiorge E].WebmedCentral 2015;8(11):WMCRW003384
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
This paper should not have been published
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 27 May 2015 12:26:36 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The results are insignificant; the Gram negative bacteria used are not affected by the ethanol extract of the fruits of Syzygium cumini. This plant has been studied before, for antibacterial activity of extracts with much more positive results. These studies are not cited in the present publication (see below).


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

    The only novelty is that the fruits of the plant was extracted, instead of leaves in earlier studies and the solvent used was ethanol, whereas in earlier studies it was among others methanol


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

    The claims are not compared with earlier literature that is relevant for this paper.


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

    The results are very weak. The only activity found, which is also very minor, is the inhibition of the gram positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus with less than 20 % inhibition compared to the “worst” antibiotic tested (Vancomycin).


  • 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 relevant to the present study.


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

    The paper is not adding any new and relevant information.


  • 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?

    No


  • 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 paper is very badly written with major language problems. The abstract is too long and contains irrelevant information detailing methods used, which are then repeated in the Methods section. All sections are full of linguistic mistakes that make the report incomprehensible. Several papers cited in the text are not in the list of references. (Braganca 1996, Loguerico et al 2005).  Illustration 4 is missing. Illustration 3 should be Table 1. The following references are all describing antibacterial effects of the Syzygium cumini plant and are not cited. Gowri and Vasantha (2010) Phytochemical screening and antibacterial activity of Syzygium cumini  (L) (Myrtaceae) leaves extracts. Int.J.PharmTech.Res. 2: 1569-1573. Mohamed, Ali and El-Baz (2013) Antioxidant amd antibacterial activities of crude extracts and essential oils of Syzygium cumini  leaves. PLoS ONE 8(4); e60629. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060269. de Oliveira et al (2007) Antimicrobial activity of Syzygium cumini  (Myrtaceae) leaves extract. Braz.J.Microbiol. 38:381-384. Chandrasekaran and Venkatesalu (2004) J. Ethnopharmacol 91: 105-108. Shafi, Rosamma, Jamil and Reddy (2002) Antibacterial activity of Syzygium cumini  and of Syzygium travancoricum leaf essential oils. Fitoterapia 73:414-416.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Isolation and characterization of an intermediate steroid metabolite in disogenin biosynthesis in suspension cultures of Dioscorea deltoidea cells. B.Tal, I.Tamir, J.S.Rokem, and I.Goldberg. The Biochemical J. 219, 619-624 (1984). Secondary metabolites form plant cell suspension culture. Methods for yield improvement. J.S.Rokem and I.Goldberg. Adv.Biotechnological Processes, 4, 241-274 (1985). Phaseollin production in cell suspensions and whole plants of Phaseolus vulgaris. Y.Peleg, S.Koder, J.S.Rokem, I.Chet and I.Goldberg. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 9, 207-215 (1987).

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am the reviewer of several journals and get articles with similar content to this to review.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.This paper should not have been published[Review of the article 'Evaluation antibacterial activity in vitro of the ethanol extract from the peel fruit of Syzygium cumini (L.) - Skeels ' by Jose Fragiorge E].WebmedCentral 2015;6(5):WMCRW003224
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse