Submited on: 29 Aug 2011 04:57:07 AM GMT
Published on: 29 Aug 2011 01:50:52 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • 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 RM J].WebmedCentral 2011;2(8):WMCRW00910
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse