Submited on: 06 Dec 2012 12:20:49 PM GMT
Published on: 06 Dec 2012 02:22:13 PM GMT
 

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

    This article attempts to review current techniques for the DNA microarray analysis, gene typing and fingerprinting applied to medicinal plants and folk medicine. Although this topic have a considerable importance, the authors fail in discuss the topic proposed. The authors made a good discussion about the actual picture of the use of medicinal plants in folk medicine, but the discussion about  DNA microarray is poor and very basic, like a text book. In addition, these topics are not well connected. The readers will better appreciate if the authors discuss the current status regarding the use, advances,limitations/advantages and knowledge obtained using DNA microarray to study medicinal plants. The authors should to focus why evaluate the gene expression profile is importante to medicinal plant research.


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

    This article is a review and do not examines new results. In this way there is no novelty.


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

    Despite of the final reference list is extensive; the claims were not put together with previous literature. The specific references for the use of DNA microarrays in studying medicinal plants should be better explored by the authors.


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

    Not applicable because is a review article.


  • 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 applicable because is a review article.


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

    Not applicable because is a review article.


  • 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?

    Not applicable because is a review article.


  • 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?

    This paper is not an outstanding work. The authors show a general review DNA microarrays and medicinal plants, but lacks emphasis on the application of this technique to medicinal plant study.


  • Other Comments:

    1. There are typographical errors.
    2. The quality of the English is not good.
    3. The author should avoid regional terms such as “crores”.

  • 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:

    I have performed drug screens searching for lead compounds active against leishmaniasis in library compounds purified from Brazilian medicinal plants, raised from biotechnological approaches and semi-synthetic organic synthesis.

  • How to cite:  Toledo J S.Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant[Review of the article 'Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant ' by Sharma R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002387
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This article attempts to review current techniques for the DNA microarray analysis of plants, with emphasis on drug discovery.


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

    This article examines methodology and not results so in that sense there is no novelty.


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

    The final reference list is extensive but the truly relevant references seem to be a much smaller percentage of the total. This is not necessarily a bad thing as there are probably not many references for the specific use of DNA microarrays in studying plants.


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

    The quality of the English is not good at times with clunky sentences that look translated. But otherwise, the content itself seems appropriate for a review.


  • 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?

    Since this is a review of methodology, there are no results with associated protocols.


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

    The article seems to do a fair job of reviewing the production procedure for DNA microarrays.


  • 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?

    The article seems to focus rather solidly on the production procedure for microarrays but often does little in describing the challenges or deviations specific for plant biology. This, at times, makes the article read more like a manual or a textbook rather than a true review with specific emphasis on the application of a technique to plant biology.


  • 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 do NOT consider this an outstanding work. It is solid as general review of technique but a specific emphasis on the APPLICATION of the technique to plant biology is in lacking. It would be much better if more attention would be paid to the specific challenges or issues of applying microarray technology to the study of plants.


  • Other Comments:

    The first two introductory sections (titled "Medicinal Plants" and "Importance of Medicinal Plants in Modern Age") seem irrelevant for review of methods. I would consider removing them. This article also requires an abstract.

  • 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:

    Some experience in the use of Oriental herbal remedies for cancer research.

  • How to cite:  Fendos J .Article Strays at Times But Main Content is Worthy.[Review of the article 'Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant ' by Sharma R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002386
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 06 Dec 2012 05:07:28 PM GMT

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

    These is a review article. While the topic is of considerable importance, the descriptions are extremely diluted by to much background on economics and basics of microarray, they need to cut to the core. The review should focus on delivering messages on current advances/achievements/attempts on using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant.


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

    Not applicable, This is a review article.


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

    Not applicable, This is a review article.


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

    Not applicable, This is a review article.


  • 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 applicable, This is a review article.


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

    Not applicable, This is a review article.


  • 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?

    This article is not about a new idea, but a review of literature to explain current advances made by using DNA microarray in studying medicinal plants, while it lacks focus on the subject, it is also essential to dicuss the limitations of the techinque, such as being focused only on gene expression, miss details about specific phytochemicals etc., Also should dicuss what has to be done to make better use of this technique, such creating a knowledgebase, or if available, point the reader to it. Why is it even necessary to catalog the gene expression profile of medicinal plants, what does the authors envision about the specific utilities on improving the quality of medicinal plant research? Many of these needs specifics.


  • 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?

    Not applicable, This is a review article.


  • Other Comments:

    Not applicable, This is a review article.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    Have performed genomewide screens, with major focus is on investigating the mechanism of action by drugs.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant[Review of the article 'Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant ' by Sharma R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002379
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


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

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


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

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


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

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


  • 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?

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


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

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


  • 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?

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


  • 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?

    It is a review, therefore does not apply.


  • Other Comments:

    1. There are typographical errors.

    2. The references are not cited in evenly, some have the year of publication in parentheses, and others not; some citations have the year after the authors and others at the end; to others, they lack the title of the article.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    1. Guadalupe García-Elorriaga, Guadalupe Carrillo-Montes, Melby Mendoza-Aguilar and César González-Bonilla. Polymorphisms in Tumor Necrosis Factor and Lymphotoxin a in Tuberculosis Without and with Response to Treatment. Inflammation. 2010; 33(4):267-275. 2. Francisco Cruz-Olivo, Guadalupe García-Elorriaga, César González-Bonilla,Guillermo del Rey-Pineda, Javier Mancilla-Ramírez. Tumor Necrosis Factor _308 and Lymphotoxin þ252 Polymorphisms in Mexican Children with Kawasaki Disease and Coronary Aneurysms. Arch Med Res. 2011; 42: 602-607.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant[Review of the article 'Importance of Using DNA Microarray in Studying Medicinal Plant ' by Sharma R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002378
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse