-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
Submited on: 30 Aug 2011 04:09:31 AM GMT
Published on: 30 Aug 2011 12:00:14 PM GMT
-
Other Comments:
it is interesting to show a table with 157 compounds (material supplement)
-
Competing interests:
No
-
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:
Bioinformatics and drug target selection
- How to cite: Isea R .In Silico Techniques for the Identification of Novel Natural Compounds for Secreting Human Breast Milk[Review of the article 'In Silico Techniques for the Identification of Novel Natural Compounds for Secreting Human Breast Milk ' by Aswathy Rajan M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(11):WMCRW001134
Previous Version:
In Silico Techniques for the Identification of Novel Natural Compounds for Secreting Human Breast Milk
-
Other Comments:
The article is written well and projected software tools such as Q-site finder, Marvinsketch, OpenTox, etc.,. The students fo bioinformatics and others can adopt these tools and plan experiemnts. Under results section small correction: instead of "fitted directly" write "were fit directly". The rest is excellent.
-
Competing interests:
no
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
If one goes through the google search > S.Krupanidhi, conservation homology among interleukins and Penicillin binding protein A, the references can be retrieved. -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
We are having the programme of DBT BIF wherein we execute insilico work related to our phyologeny experiments and docking studies.
- How to cite: Sreerama K .http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2120[Review of the article 'In Silico Techniques for the Identification of Novel Natural Compounds for Secreting Human Breast Milk ' by Aswathy Rajan M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(8):WMCRW00910
The topic as well as the proposed methodology are interesting, however I see major points that require clarification and discussion and the lack of number of citations. I also list some minor points that would improve the clarity of the whole work
Major points:
A discussion on the potential benefits/advantages of Sesamine versus Domperidone or the lacks of Domperidone is crucial to understand the necessity of the current research
“Toxicity Analysis” results would deserve a table or a figure to quantify and support the Discussion section
“literature survey” is named but not listed
citation and summarized description of Lipinski's Rule of Five is missing,
MarvinSketch, AutoDock, OpenTox citation missing
Minor points:
A figure illustrating the prolactin receptor pathway would be of great help while reading
Fig 1a and 1b refer only to few of the compounds, this is not properly addressed in the section "Collection of Compounds", it should be removed from there
Section “Selection of the receptor” has “?” citation both in html and in pdf
Hex docked deserves a description
Discussion section, 1st row I would change “make out”
what is SDF format? If not relevant in the text it should be removed, or (better) offered as supporting information
none
No
No
None
I work in computational biology, I normally use databases and simulation tools to refine in silico biological hypotheses