Structured PREreview of Antimicrobial Activity of Plant Extracts Against Multidrug-Resistant and High Biofilm-Producing Clinical Isolates of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction presents a logical flow of ideas, and the study's objectives are highlighted at the end of this section. However, to further strengthen this section, the authors may consider highlighting the specific knowledge gap the study addresses and explaining more explicitly how this work differs from previous investigations evaluating medicinal plants against MDR bacterial pathogens.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The experimental design generally aligns with the stated objectives. Standard microbiological methods were used for bacterial isolation, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, biofilm assessment, plant extraction, and PCR detection of the eae gene. However, some methodological details would benefit from clarification: 1. The criteria for selecting the ten medicinal plants could be described in greater detail; 2. Additional information regarding extraction yield, standardization of extracts, and phytochemical composition would improve reproducibility; 3. The statistical analysis section is brief and contains inconsistencies in reporting p-values. To improve this section, the statistical methods should be described more clearly, including the assumptions, the software used, and the significance thresholds. (e.g., >0.5, >0.01, >0.001 and later (p<0.001), (p<0.01) and (p<0.05)); In summary, the methods are appropriate but would benefit from additional methodological detail.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The results presented support the conclusion that several plant extracts exhibited antimicrobial activity against MDR STEC isolates. However, statements suggesting that these extracts could serve as alternative therapeutic agents should be interpreted with caution, as the study is limited to in vitro experiments. The conclusion would be strengthened by emphasizing the preliminary nature of the findings.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The figures and tables are appropriate and assist in presenting the findings. Possible improvements include: 1. Improve image resolution, particularly for gel electrophoresis figure; 2. Add clearer legends that allow readers to interpret figures without referring extensively to the text; 3. Include numerical summary tables where appropriate to complement graphical presentations; 4. Tables 1 and 2, referenced in the text for the plant list and per-isolate sensitivity breakdown, are missing. These refinements would improve readability and interpretation.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The discussion appropriately relates the findings to existing literature and highlights the potential role of medicinal plants in addressing antimicrobial resistance. Nevertheless, several sections could be strengthened by: 1. Discussing study limitations more explicitly, including sample size and the in vitro nature of the experiments; 2. Explaining possible mechanisms underlying the antimicrobial activity of the most effective plant extracts; 3. Providing more specific recommendations for future work, including purification of active compounds, toxicity testing, pharmacological evaluation, animal studies....

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The study contributes useful preliminary evidence regarding the antimicrobial potential of selected medicinal plants against multidrug-resistant STEC isolates. Its contribution would be strengthened by deeper phytochemical characterization, more comprehensive antimicrobial testing, and additional validation studies. Nonetheless, it provides a valuable foundation for future investigations in antimicrobial drug discovery.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

This PREprint would substantially benefit from professional English language editing. Several grammatical issues, inconsistent verb tenses, awkward sentence constructions, punctuation errors, and typographical mistakes occur throughout the manuscript. Improving language quality would greatly enhance readability and scientific presentation without altering the scientific content. Examples of grammatical issues: -Subject-verb agreement: people is working hard; awkward phrasing throughout the Introduction and Discussion, and -Some typographical errors (“Statics” for “Statistics,” “Ofloaxacin” for “Ofloxacin,” “wordwide” for “worldwide,” “Soifisticated” for “Sophisticated”).

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The PREprint presents relevant findings in an important area of antimicrobial resistance research. Researchers working in microbiology, medicinal plants, antimicrobial drug discovery, and infectious diseases may find the study informative. Readers should, however, interpret the findings as preliminary until further validation studies are conducted.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

The study has scientific merit and addresses an important research question. Before journal publication, the manuscript would benefit from revisions that improve methodological reporting, strengthen statistical analysis, moderate some interpretations, and enhance the overall quality of the writing. Overall, this is a worthwhile contribution that has the potential to make a meaningful addition to the literature after revision.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.