Moringa oleifera: A Review on the Antiproliferative Potential in Breast Cancer Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “A review on the potential antiproliferative effect of Moringa oleifera aqueous leaf extract in breast cancer cells” written by Malebogo M. Moremane et.al. is a typical Review that meets all the requirements of such type of manuscript. The introduction provides a good background for the topic and emphasizes the importance of searching for new active substances for cancer treatment. Natural sources are a mine of new compounds, not only in the context of anti-cancer substances, and are still a hot topic. A good strategy is to draw inspiration from ancient traditional medicine. The authors indicated Moringa oleifera as a valuable source of compounds with anticancer and antioxidant properties. the article broadly describes the mechanisms of cancer development at the molecular level, using numerous scientific reports from a given area of knowledge. The presented manuscript is succinct and quite well written, however, I recommend minor changes, according to the comments below:

1.      The affiliation details are incorrect and must be true and correct.

2.      In my opinion, the preparation of statistical graphics for several areas discussed in the article would contribute to the increase of interest in this work, for example:

- adding a graph illustrating worldwide statistics on breast cancer incidence among women in the context of overall cancer incidence would be a valuable addition.

3.      The decimal numbers should be written with a dot “.”, not a comma “,”. Please check the entire document and correct these bugs.

4.      The resolution of figures no.: 1,4,5,7, and 9 should be of better quality.

5.      The authors did not manage to avoid minor editorial errors, e.g. to many spaces or commas missing. Of course, this does not reduce the quality of the article, but it should be corrected before final publication.

 

6.      Please check the correctness of literature references: 2, 156, and 164. It seems they do not meet the citation rules recommended by the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is fine but I recommend editorial correction (typos bugs, punctuation e.t.c.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript is well written and it deserves to be published but after changes which are mentioned in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting approach. A review on a single plant in breast cancer.

Paper is of interest for the readers.

In my opinion the introductory part is too big.

It looks more like a book chapter.

But still, the authors are doing a good job reviewing  some basics in breast cancer.

It is concerning that some figures have in the figure legends just a reference. Do you have the author approval to use this Figures? Are they modified?

English should be corrected by a native. ex: ailments it is not incorect, but can be replaced with at least 3 more appropiate terms

i like that the conclusions are balanced since getting the general population in an idea that a plant will treat cancer is a dangerous game to play.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be corrected by a native. ex: ailments it is not incorect, but can be replaced with at least 3 more appropiate terms

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf