Characterization and in vitro antibacterial activity of sulfated polysaccharides from freshwater alga Cladophora crispata
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Sulfated polysaccharides (SPs) from Cladophora crispata were extracted by ultrasonic bath: purify the crude SPs. Compounds of SPs were identified, and we investigated the effect of SPs as antibacterial agents.
Article activity feed
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature.
-
-
The paper is poorly structured and written, which has prevented a proper assessment of the research done. The organisation of the files made it difficult to see what revisions were made where and in which file as the names are confusing. It was very difficult to follow as no line numbering was used and the language made it hard and this affected the reviewing process as elaborated by Reviewer 1. Although the author made the required revision requested by the 2 reviewers, and to help guide that revision, I've added a few notes on the revised manuscript and highlighted points that seem to warrant special attention. I still think there is a need to improve the language for effective communication of your science (e.g. better figures) and throughout the manuscript, it is difficult to follow where a sentence starts and stops and where the …
The paper is poorly structured and written, which has prevented a proper assessment of the research done. The organisation of the files made it difficult to see what revisions were made where and in which file as the names are confusing. It was very difficult to follow as no line numbering was used and the language made it hard and this affected the reviewing process as elaborated by Reviewer 1. Although the author made the required revision requested by the 2 reviewers, and to help guide that revision, I've added a few notes on the revised manuscript and highlighted points that seem to warrant special attention. I still think there is a need to improve the language for effective communication of your science (e.g. better figures) and throughout the manuscript, it is difficult to follow where a sentence starts and stops and where the next one starts. Throughout the manuscript, there is a need for better sentence construction such as proper tense namely at: Line 3: "had been emerged" Line 68:"or reticulatechloroplast. " Line 69:"carotene give it its " Line 78-79: It appears something is missing from this sentence., so please check "quick production under controlled environmental conditions polysaccharides were extracted from fungi, bacterial and yeasts [4-6], and from algae; polysaccharides are the most important Line 142:"modifications, Briefly; Dry powder " Line 158 (disolved -> dissolved). This also contained a hyperlink as it this was copy-pasted from a website. Line 194-105:"they were identified it's according to Bergey's manual" Line 205: "Antimicrobial activity determined for each fraction" Line 227: Spss Line 233: "branches are small the diameter ranged". Something is missing here. Line 238: "illumination duration of 14.30 hours." Is this correct? Line 256-258: Please rewrite this. Line 272: "it indicates to present uronic acids. " Please rewrite. Line 289: Please rewrite "proteins [41], after purification, the high sulfate groups are tightly linked to the SPs chains [43]." Line 321" Please write proper tense "spectroscopy had used for this " Line 324: Rewrite "polysaccharide; inhibit " Line 364: Rewrite "The ultrasonic waves consider a useful " Line 374:"which caused increased " Section 3.2 is irrelevant and can be merged with another section. The language is also confusing. Please clarify. Figure 1 needs to be of better quality with a proper legend. Table 1 needs to be designed better so as to make it easy understand what the control and distil water are for. Table 2 top legend: "Uroinc acids -> uronic" Table 3: Please redo this table as it is creating confusion between the small alphabets (abc) and capital (ABC) in the main table. Use different symbols to differentiate. Table 4: Please rewrite the bacteria ID (S. Aureus, B.anthracis and E. Aerogenes, P.aeroginosa) properly. (e.g. S. Aureus)
-
Comments to Author
The corresponding author responded to reviewer comments well. But I think that the resubmitted manuscript is not revised.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the …
Comments to Author
The corresponding author responded to reviewer comments well. But I think that the resubmitted manuscript is not revised.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
-
The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. The language used is poor, which can cause ambiguity at times. Please carefully rewrite it. We offer a discounted translation service, Editage (https://www.editage.com/; see https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/prepare-an-article#13 for more information). Please provide more detail in the Methods section and ensure that software is consistently cited and its version and parameters included. The reviewers raise concerns regarding the scientific rigour and experimental design of the work.
-
Comments to Author
Dear authors, I have read through your manuscript very carefully. It is a good attempt but you need to include a lot of information in the manuscript. I suggest you to download Grammarly and run it on your word file. You will be able to fix the grammatical errors. 1. MIC graph is not needed 2. ZoI plate and MIC test tube images are mandatory 3. Sampling site map and sampling details need to be shared. See my comments in the file 4. Make a photoplate with the microscopic images that you have 5. Additional line by line comments found below: (Numbers refer to line numbers in manuscript) 21 & 24 – Syria S capital? 30 – Rethink keywords. These do not reflect the work. 36 – is this river in Syria? Please mention country here 37 – discontinuous sentence. Remove the algae have ....bioactive compounds. …
Comments to Author
Dear authors, I have read through your manuscript very carefully. It is a good attempt but you need to include a lot of information in the manuscript. I suggest you to download Grammarly and run it on your word file. You will be able to fix the grammatical errors. 1. MIC graph is not needed 2. ZoI plate and MIC test tube images are mandatory 3. Sampling site map and sampling details need to be shared. See my comments in the file 4. Make a photoplate with the microscopic images that you have 5. Additional line by line comments found below: (Numbers refer to line numbers in manuscript) 21 & 24 – Syria S capital? 30 – Rethink keywords. These do not reflect the work. 36 – is this river in Syria? Please mention country here 37 – discontinuous sentence. Remove the algae have ....bioactive compounds. Start at, Cladaphora... I strongly suggest to download Grammarly and run it on your word file. It will help remove the formating errors 40 – which were further studied to understand their role as antibacterial agents 41 – line not needed. Sentence must start with capital letter 44 – F2 is the purified fraction. Please write purified fraction instead of F2. 45 – sentence is incomplete. Fix. 63 – reference? 64 – such as Cladaphora 69 – Last sentence, remove 71-72 – remove 73 – Keep ‘Polysaccharides are the most important products of algae [7]’ and add - and show important biochemical properties which require thorough investigations to understand their structure and biochemical functions 74 – ‘there is increasing concern in studying the structure and biochemical functions of polysaccharides’ - several studies have reported antimicrobial properties of sulfated polysaccharides 79 – for e.g. polysaccharides from green algae.... 85 – ‘In this study’…. The objectives for this study were a) to isolate and cultivate Cladophora crispata to understand its growth dynamics b)to study the chemical and functional properties of the crude and purified SPs produced by this species 91 – which month? Saying 2021 spring is not enough 92 – GPS coordinates of sampling sites are needed. Please provide study site map as Fig. 1 or S1. white transparent bottles? What was the light condition during storage? 94 – these are microalgae. How do you wash them? If you collected benthic samples, you need to clarify samplng strategies. Did you use a corer? Grab? Provide detailed information 102 – give values and what did you use to add nitrogen and phosphate? Which salts? And what method was used to estimate these elements in the water? 105 – write in brief and put the reference in bracket. Otherwise its difficult for readers if you just give the reference 107 – what modifications? 111 – molecular grade absolute ethanol you mean? 119 – sulfated – capital letter 120 – polysaccharides – no capital letter 123 – company information missing. There is no hyphen. it should be 1L 133 – somewhere you have written full names and other places IUPAC names. Please stick to one format 147 – Xu’s assay - brief details needed 157 – why did you use such dangerous pathogenic species? Why not Ecoli and Bacillus subtilis? 164 – Did you measure the OD? 172 – mention conc here. range is not enough 178 – write minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) 188 – Which stat? You need to write. 194 – use micron sign. 195 – with a diameter of ~50-70 198-203 – you need to break these up into simple sentences 200 – this data is crucial You need to share it 205 – carbohydrate content - how much? High nitrogen - how much? 209 – which microscope was used?You need to make a photopanel. Something like these https://www.google.com/search?q=algae+image+photoplate&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi1g67voJ79AhWCg-YKHQyLBgQQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=algae+image+photoplate&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJzoICAAQgAQQsQM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOgUIABCABDoECAAQHjoJCAAQgAQQChAYOgcIABCABBAYOgYIABAFEB46BggAEAgQHlDYBFinUGDBUmgJcAB4A4AB5gOIAYU6kgEKMS4xNC43LjQuNJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=KFfwY7XPFYKHmgeMlpog&bih=685&biw=1517#imgrc=U4D35ZZXbLFfgM 216 – well-characterized … meaning? 219 – agrees with … what does this mean? 227 – little differences 236 – this image is resized. Please dont change the image size. 244 – how? positive correlation? 264 – agrees with … meaning? 282 – how did you measure this? 283 - 285 – what is the relevance of this information? 293 – you need to share the ZoI and MIC test images. Labeled petriplates and test tubes with date of test. 312 – i dont know what this graph means. There is no need to plot MIC on graphs
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
The manuscript has been revised well, including the corrections of grammatical errors. However, additional errors were found in revised sentences. My concerns are shown below. Specific comments: There are a lot of typos. Examples are below. Line 45: "crud" => "crude" Line 64: "amultinucleate" => "multinucleate" Line 97: "Kawach" => "Kawachi" Line 106: "Song" => "Song et al." Lines 123-125: "PBS saline" => "PBS" Line 173: "Cefteriaxons" => "Ceftriaxons" Line 186: "2.9." => "2.8." Table 2: "Inhabit zone" => "Inhibition zone". "samalphabetical" is a typo? Regarding format errors, incorrect use of capitalization is found in many places. Some examples are shown below. Line 38: "sulfated Polysaccharides" Line 45: "infrared Spectroscopy" Line 47: "High performance" Additionally, it would be nice to define …
Comments to Author
The manuscript has been revised well, including the corrections of grammatical errors. However, additional errors were found in revised sentences. My concerns are shown below. Specific comments: There are a lot of typos. Examples are below. Line 45: "crud" => "crude" Line 64: "amultinucleate" => "multinucleate" Line 97: "Kawach" => "Kawachi" Line 106: "Song" => "Song et al." Lines 123-125: "PBS saline" => "PBS" Line 173: "Cefteriaxons" => "Ceftriaxons" Line 186: "2.9." => "2.8." Table 2: "Inhabit zone" => "Inhibition zone". "samalphabetical" is a typo? Regarding format errors, incorrect use of capitalization is found in many places. Some examples are shown below. Line 38: "sulfated Polysaccharides" Line 45: "infrared Spectroscopy" Line 47: "High performance" Additionally, it would be nice to define what authors are omitting. Line 76: It would be better to spell out "DPPH" and "ABTS". Lines 132-133: KBr powder => Potassium bromide (KBr) powder Line 148: "RID" might be spelled out. Lines 48-51: In the abstract, MIC values do not correspond to results shown in Fig. 5. The data will need to be checked again. It would be good to indicate whether each bacterium is gram-positive or gram-negative. It makes the third sentence in the highlights section easier to understand. Lines 72-74: Yeasts also belong to fungi. It would be better to explain why polysaccharides are the most important products. "There are increasing interests" might be better than "there is increasing concern". Lines 97-99: It would be good to explain the composition of fermentation medium. Lines 102-103: How was the stationary phase of the biomass determined? I would like to see a brief explanation of that. Lines 193-195 and 459-462: "Our result agrees with [34]" is a vague explanation. Is it the result of microscopic observation? The reference [34] is Athbi et al. (2012). The format of the reference must be correct. Athbi AM, Ali DS, Abaas AN. The quantity determination of total carbohydrates and monosaccharides from some green algae (Chlorophyta). Marsch Bull. 2012. Available: https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/b9815f379b8f731b Lines 198-207: It is difficult to discuss about biomass production because the result for biomass composition of Cladophora crispata is not shown. It would be good to show the data here. Lines 212-214: Why is Ramadan et al. [39] referred to here? Did you use the method for orange fruit peel? Authors should recheck the relationship between the text and the reference list. Lines 234-235: Kidgell et al. [40] is not described about the detail of pyranose. Did you refer to the peak for pyranose? It is better to explain using the values used as a reference. Lines 243-246: How did you note the association between carbohydrate and protein? I think that table 1 does not show it. It would be good to show a brief explanation here. Lines 247-250: Boulet et al. [41] does not explain high sulfate groups and SPs chains. Suitable references should be given. Lines 262-264: Zouaghi et al. [33] does not show monosaccharides, galactose, xylose, and ribose. The reference should be corrected, or it would be better to explain why it agrees. Lines 266-270: Kidgell et al. [40] that is the review paper for ulvan might be referred to here. Lines 283-285: Epand et al. [43] does not include the description of the ulvan. Should be confirmed references. Figure 4: It would be nice to add an explanation for peak 1 (2.800) and peak 2 (3.517). Table 1: "Total" for "Carbohydrates" is needed? Total Carbohydrates => Carbohydrate I do not understand the meaning of the same alphabetical letters. It would be good to discuss the results in the text.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
The language used is poor, which can cause ambiguity at times. Please carefully rewrite it. We offer a discounted translation service, Editage (https://www.editage.com/; see https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/prepare-an-article#13 for more information).
-