Cell Growth Inhibition, DNA Fragmentation and Apoptosis-Inducing Properties of Household-Processed Leaves and Seeds of Fenugreek (Trigonella Foenum-Graecum Linn.) against HepG2, HCT-116, and MCF-7 Cancerous Cell Lines
, Rasha A. Mansouri 3, Mohamed Afifi 5,6,7 and Ammar Al-Farga 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All corrections should be done before the start of publication process
There is no declaration of conflict interests
There is no data availability
There is no author contributions
There is no recommendations
There is no acknowledgements
The most used references contained more than 6 authors ---why ?? should be 6 at the maximum plus etal with the last ones ---apply for all
The most used references need to be more update
LN/20---antiproliferative or anticancer --which is more better and why ??
Huge amounts of abbreviations----why ???tabulate all
LN/37-39---the author (s) nearly used all abstracts words as a keywords--be more concise
Abstract need more improvement and it will be much better if it contained background , Methods, Results and discussion
LN/41-64---should be put in table and move it toward the reference lists (before) or after conclusion
LN/67---chemoprevention----explain mechanism(s)
LN/69-70---important morphological stages---preneoplastic,neoplasia,and metastasis---all are morphology ???
LN/73----add reference
LN/74-75----the classification of apoptosis into I and II according to what ????
LN/196-203---this applied method done according to whom!! add reference
LN/254-259---this is not results and we are not add any references at the results section
LN/277-278---is this discussion or what ???if yes---should rite results and discussion as a main item , otherwise remove it or adjust it
LN/662---there is a separate discussion----so delete LN/277-278
Discussion should be more concise and based upon debating the obtained results with those of the previous investigators results
Results is very long
Figure (3) should be like figure (2) in arrangement
Huge number of references (47)!!!!
As volume , issue , number and pages ---all are available ---so no need for the link(s)----apply for all
Author Response
Reviewer 1
- There is no declaration of conflict interests
It has been added as recommended by the reviewer
- There is no data availability
It has been added as recommended by the reviewer
- There is no author contributions
It has been added as recommended by the reviewer
- There is no recommendations
It has been added as recommended by the reviewer
- There is no acknowledgements
It has been added as recommended by the reviewer
- The most used references contained more than 6 authors ---why ?? should be 6 at the maximum plus et al with the last ones ---apply for all
All references had been modified in the References section (LN 693, 705, 728, 750, 765, 768, 779, 782, 797, 799,
- LN/20---anti-proliferative or anticancer --which is more better and why ?
Anti-proliferative is similar in the meaning to anticancer. The anticancer agents has defined to be any drug or natural compound that is effective on the treatment of cancerous diseases through inhibition or destroying the growth of cancer cells.
On the other side, anti-proliferative tending to suppress cell growth, especially the growth of the tumor cells (that could be malignant or benign) into surrounding tissue.
- Huge amounts of abbreviations----why ???tabulate all
Abbreviation had been tabulated in Table 8 (after conclusion)
- LN/37-39---the author (s) nearly used all abstracts words as a keywords--be more concise
Keywords had been concise according to the Reviewer device (LN/65)
- Abstract need more improvement and it will be much better if it contained background , Methods, Results and discussion
Abstract had been modified and contained Background, Methods, Results and discussion and Conclusion—(from LN/21 to LN/64)
- LN/41-64---should be put in table and move it toward the reference lists (before) or after conclusion
Abbreviation had been tabulated in Table 8 (after conclusion)
12- LN/67---chemoprevention----explain mechanism(s)
The potential mechanisms of chemotherapy are
- Mechanisms of tumor-blocking agents, including: scavenging of free radicals, antioxidant activity, induction of phase I and II drug-metabolizing enzymes, induction of DNA repair, and blockade of carcinogen uptake (Steward and Brown, 2013).
- Mechanisms of tumor-suppressing agents, including: alternation of gene expression, inhibition of cell proliferation and clonal expansion, induction of apoptosis in preneoplastic lesions, induction of terminal differentiation and senescence, and modulation of signal transduction Steward and Brown, 2013).
" Steward W.P., Brown K. (2013). Cancer chemoprevention: a rapidly evolving field. BJC, 109: 1-7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.280".
13- LN/69-70---important morphological stages---preneoplastic, neoplasia,and metastasis---all are morphology ???
Yes, all of them are morphogenetic stages and we adjusted this word at LN/74 according to the reviewer's advice.
14- LN/73----add reference
It had been modified (from LN/78 to LN/81).
15- LN/74-75----the classification of apoptosis into I and II according to what ????
This classification is according to two main apoptotic pathways: the extrinsic or death receptor pathway and the intrinsic or mitochondrial pathway (Elmore, 2007).
" Elmore S. (2007). Apoptosis: A Review of Programmed Cell Death. Toxicol Pathol. 35(4): 495–516. "
16- LN/196-203---this applied method done according to whom!! add reference
The references of applied methods were added at the following lines; 180, 186, 193, 199, and 209.
17- LN/254-259---this is not results and we are not add any references at the results section
We deleted this paragraph from the manuscript.
18- LN/277-278---is this discussion or what ???if yes---should rite results and discussion as a main item , otherwise remove it or adjust it
It had been deleted from the Results section and added to the Discussion section according to the reviewer's advice (LN/612 to 616).
19- LN/662---there is a separate discussion----so delete LN/277-278
LN/ 277-278 had been deleted and transferred into the discussion section according to the reviewer's device (LN/612 to 616).
20- Discussion should be more concise and based upon debating the obtained results with those of the previous investigators results
They had been modified according to the reviewer's advice.
21- Results is very long
As we tested five samples against four cell lines (involved: HepG2, MCF-7, HCT-116, VERO) and investigated their effects on six genes (included: p53, Cas-3, Bax, Bcl-2, TNF-α, and 8-OHdG) and two antibodies (IKK-α, and IKK-β). In addition to, we studied their activity on the DNA fragments of each HepG2 and MCF-7.
22- Figure (3) should be like figure (2) in arrangement
In figure (2) we tested the relative gene expression against all tested cell lines (four cell lines). Otherwise, in figure (3) we used ELISA assay for investigation the gene expression against only two cell lines.
23- Huge number of references (47) !!!!
The number of references had been decreased to only 40 references according to the reviewer's advice.
24- As volume , issue , number and pages ---all are available ---so no need for the link(s)----apply for all
Links for all references had been introduced in the references section
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract:
The abstract should be re-written, it’s very poorly written and its very less as well. There are several mistakes in it for example Line 30 ELIZA Or ELISA?
10 key words in which there seems long sentences
Introduction
Very poorly written it should be revised by a native speaker or through some professional tools.
There is only one reference from 2021 and 2020 the rest of the references are fairly old.
The authors should include latest references as there is a lot of research work done in this area.
Figures quality is very poor and its blur it cannot been seen properly especially figure 1 and 4 are very confusing please provide clear figures with high resolution.
Please provide phylogenetic analysis for the quantitive gene analysis.
What is the novelty of this research work?
Author Response
Point-by-point response to reviewers
Reviewer 2
Abstract
- The abstract should be re-written, it’s very poorly written and its very less as well. There are several mistakes in it for example Line 30 ELIZA Or ELISA?
The abstract had been modified and the mistakes had been corrected (from LN 21 to LN 64).
- 10 key words in which there seems long sentences
The keywords had been summarized to six keywords (LN 65).
Introduction
- Very poorly written it should be revised by a native speaker or through some professional tools.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have polished this manuscript by a native speaker.
- There is only one reference from 2021 and 2020 the rest of the references are fairly old. The authors should include latest references as there is a lot of research work done in this area.
The references had been updated according to the reviewer's advice (from LN 684 to 686 and from LN 735 to 736).
- Figures quality is very poor and its blur it cannot been seen properly especially figure 1 and 4 are very confusing please provide clear figures with high resolution.
The images are the available images with us.
Please provide phylogenetic analysis for the quantitative gene analysis
Thank you for your comments. Good suggestion Although results not use the phylogenetic analysis for the quantitative gene analysis. At the same time, we will do it in the next paper
- What is the novelty of this research work?
Fenugreek plant has an essential bioactive components and also has a bitter taste which made it unfavorable for many people. In Egypt, household treatments such as soaking, boiling, and germination of raw seeds and air-drying of leaves improved the taste of the seeds that increased the consumption and the shelf life of this plant, respectively. Various research articles studied the cytotoxicty of the raw seeds and leaves but very few articles has been study the effects of the household treatments on the anti-proliferative activity and the apoptotic-inducing property of the processed seeds.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have responded to my comments , so my decision is approved for publishing
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript but still the figure quality is not good. They mentioned they have only these figures, the figure quality is not good and its blur. Please provide the good quality figures,
There are still some minor english grammar mistakes, minor spell check is also required.
