Submited on: 02 Feb 2013 12:12:45 AM GMT
Published on: 02 Feb 2013 07:10:44 AM GMT
 

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

    Necrotic lesions of plant support the growth of enteric bacteria than the healthy part. In plants, Necrosis, rotting, changes in texture etc., due to biological and physical activities could supports the growth of various saprophytes as well as non-plant pathogens, as it could provides all the essentials nutrients required for growth.


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

    No, proper references are cited in the present article.


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

    Yes.


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

    Study based on single set of experiments, even not included environmental parameters; in order to revealed host-microbial interaction, and the growth of microorganism under different environmental conditions ie. Micro environment, more parameters should be included to established facts. Probably it is a short term (3 month) study.


  • 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?

    Statistical analysis was not performed.


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

    Not standardized


  • 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 looks like a pilot study; probably authors have more information to share with us.


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    Environmental microbiology and public health

  • How to cite:  Pathak A K.Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in Phytopathogen Damaged and Healthy Fresh Produce[Review of the article 'Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in Phytopathogen Damaged and Healthy Fresh Produce ' by Kulkarni N].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002506
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    To determine the extent to which phytopathogenically damaged fresh product supports the survival of Salmonella typhimurium in edible portion of the plant and their comparative evaluation among healthy plants. Hence, in order to reduce disease outbreaks associated with fresh product, it is important to protect the fresh product from attack of phytopathogen; this might be helpful to improve food safety.


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

    Yes, the claims are novel.


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

    Yes.


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

    Yes. None evidence is required. But, the results for Salmonella Thyfimurium do not appear in the tables! 


  • 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?

    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?

    Yes.


  • 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?

    No.


  • 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?

    Yes, because the studies described herein, revealed that phytopathogen damage of fresh produce can greatly enhance its colonization with enteric human pathogens viz., Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp.


  • Other Comments:

    1. The bibliography should be updated, 2011-2013.

    2. The English language should be revised by a native speaker of the language.

  • 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 worked for 20 years in a laboratory of medical microbiology and sanitary.

  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in phytopathogen damaged and healthy fresh product.[Review of the article 'Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in Phytopathogen Damaged and Healthy Fresh Produce ' by Kulkarni N].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002498
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The authors compared Salmonella persistence in phytopathogen infected and healthy produce. Salmonella decreased regardless of the treatment. The claim is important.


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

    Probably


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

    I think so


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

    The results support the claim. However, the entire paper is really only one experiment. Appears a bit weak and the authors could have done more to soludify their claim.


  • 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?

    I am missing replicates


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

    At a minimum, there could have been a figure to demonstrate the data. The way the combined results and discussion is written, it is difficult to filter out the results. Also, I did not find any statistical analysis of the data. If replicates were indicated, I must have missed those.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • 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:

    Development of treatments to prevent infection by E. coli O157:H7 transmitted by meat and meat products

  • How to cite:  Pruess B .Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in Phytopathogen Damaged and Healthy Fresh Produce[Review of the article 'Studies on Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in Phytopathogen Damaged and Healthy Fresh Produce ' by Kulkarni N].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002485
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse