Submited on: 28 Sep 2013 06:31:08 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Sep 2013 07:42:44 AM GMT
 

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

    NA


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

    NA


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

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    The article entitled "A-Phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact" is a review article and therfore most of the questions will not be applicable to the review article.

    Nevertheless, the article needs to be little more elaborative with a more in-depth discussion about the biological properties of PEA with the recent studies.

    Secondly, the fonts should be checked, as for eg: "?-phenethylamine"...throughout the manuscript.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    NA

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    We are currently working on the bioinvasion programme and investigating the compounds secreted within the bacterial population that in turn prevent the bacterial multiplication as well as biofile formation.

  • How to cite:  Anthony J .A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact [Review of the article 'A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact ' by Pruess B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(12):WMCRW002911
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A-Phenylalanine, a small molecules with a large impact
Posted by Dr. Ranjith N Kumavath on 29 Oct 2013 10:09:17 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    It says that, few information was given in MS, but the authores should cover the entair information and literature.


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

    No, there is such great information in the manuscript.


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

    Not covered


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

    They have to be focussed on hyperactivity disordes.


  • 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 extensively explained.


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

    Chemical synthesis of PEA is well written but natural synthesis is not covered by authros in this review.


  • 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?

    I do not  encourage this paper to publish


  • 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:

    As the whole this paper is noting speacking much novel or new information. hence i woould not recommand this ms for final considaration.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Catabolism of L-phenylalanine in research in microbiology,2007

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Kumavath R N.A-Phenylalanine, a small molecules with a large impact[Review of the article 'A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact ' by Pruess B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002882
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact
Posted by Dr. Oluyomi S Adeyemi on 17 Oct 2013 03:36:20 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The major submissions of this review article are;

     

    1. phenyethylamine (PEA) have potential as an alternative therapeutics for psychological disorders

    2. PEA could be explored for food treatment in order to reduce bacterial contamination


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

     This is a review article. Submissions made are premised on;

     

    1. the interaction of PEA and TAAR1

    2. the antibacterial action of PEA.

     

    These claims have been soppurted by relevant references in the literature.


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

    Submissions by authors were premised on existing research findings on PEA and related compounds.


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

    This is a review article. Authors have advanced current references in the literature to support submissions.


  • 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?

    Not applicable. This 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?

    To further increase the robustness of article, authors need to the major points in more coherent fashion.


  • Other Comments:

    Generally, review articles are written with explicity. It usually discusses existing scientific findings on a particular subject with a view to apprpriating 'what has been done' and 'what is yet to be done'. It essentially identifies and articulates research or knowledge gaps from available empirical data which could become potential areas for research exploration. The current article has not fared well in this direction.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an academic biochemist

  • How to cite:  Adeyemi O S.A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact[Review of the article 'A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact ' by Pruess B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002876
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact
Posted by Dr. Miranda Bader on 10 Oct 2013 08:57:48 PM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    This review article summarizes what is known about PEA.


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

    No, but it is a review so they are not expected to be.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    1. This review would be greatly improved with more focus and in-depth discussion of previously published literature; it is very introductory. For example, many discuss other biogenic compounds/amines more than PEA itself! Some sections mention PEA only once, and do not even discuss it! The title of this review is A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact and should therefore be a complete discussion of PEA, not other amines/biogenic compounds.
    2. A figure of the chemical synthesis of PEA would greatly aid in the clarity and understanding of the Chemical Synthesis section.
    3. “This novel discovery will improve the confidence of the diagnostic efforts, possibly leading to reduced misdiagnosis and overmedication...” – This is a very intriguing statement, but the section just ends here; elaborate!


  • 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. But it has the potential if revised, focused, and more in-depth review of the literature.


  • Other Comments:

    1. Needs to be proof-read, not the best English grammar and flow.
    2. Please ensure files are saved and uploaded in compatible formats -- "?-methylated".
    3. It is not an “illustration” if it is a table.
    4. Specifically, 1 kg of benzyl cyanide is mixed with 1 tablespoon of the Raney-Nickel catalyst in a calorimeter bomb. – Because chemical recipes are relative to the scientist and their experiment, it should not be included in a review.
    5. “Serenity Station describes the effects of PEA as ‘feeling happier, more alive and even having a better mood and attitude’” – This this is an advertisement, not peer-reviewed, proven research, and therefore should not be included in this manuscript. Furthermore, it is stated that “Throughout this manuscript, we mention companies that sell PEA. We are not in any way affiliated with any of these and do not mean to discriminate. The list of companies is incomplete and exemplary.” This good to state up-front, however, the company information that was included was not really useful. How were the companies that were included in the manuscript selected? It would be better to include a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed, previously published literature.
    6. Because PEA is legume-, bacterial-, and chocolate-derived, AND since “…PEA has stimulant effects which lead to the release of so called biogenic amines,… PEA has recently gained popularity as a nutritional supplement that is sold by numerous health stores to improve mood,” it seems counterintuitive to use it as an indicator of bacterial contamination and spoilage. Elaborate on and clarify this conundrum. Furthermore, it is stated that, “Most recently, it has been found that PEA can be added to food intentionally to reduce bacterial cell counts of E. coli O157:H7 (3.3).” – Can it be concluded then that a higher amount of naturally occurring PEA is indicative of lower amounts of bacterial contamination/spoilage?
    7. Since elevated levels of amines are usually an indicator of food spoilage, it is possible use detection of amines as an indicator of food freshness. – Other amines, yes, but you do not provide evidence of PEA indicative of spoilage?

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    PhD research in neurochemistry, specifically brain

  • How to cite:  Bader M .A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact[Review of the article 'A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact ' by Pruess B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002874
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact
Posted by Dr. L. Caetano M Antunes on 06 Oct 2013 02:57:16 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Not applicable - the paper is a review article about phenylethylamine. 


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

    Not applicable - the paper is a review article. 


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

    Not applicable - the paper is a review article. 


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

    Not applicable - the paper 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 - the paper 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 - the paper 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 - the paper 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?

    No.


  • Other Comments:

    In general, the paper is well written and brings forth an interesting subject.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I currently perform small molecule research myself.

  • How to cite:  Antunes L M.A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact[Review of the article 'A-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact ' by Pruess B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002872
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse