OBJECTIVE CRITERIA (QUALITY)
Quality: Experiments (1–3 scale) SCORE = 2 (hard to determine based on incomplete Materials & Methods section)
Figure by figure, do experiments, as performed, have the proper controls?
Figure 2: We found that Figure 2B was missing a control 0 µg/mL dose. Figure 2C had a spike in biofilm formation at 2 µg/mL and it is unclear whether this is a true biological event or technical issue. It is unclear whether the “n” in this experiment represents individual biological replicates or one experiment with eight technical replicates. The authors should clarify this point. Figure 2D: While it was nice to see a negative control in this experiment it was a positive control; NH125 is commercially available has been previously proven to kill MRSA persister cells (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976882/). Figure 3: It was not clear how cell growth rates were normalized in the Tn mutant library screen. In general, further methodological details on these experiments is required. Figure 4: We could not read this figure due to poor resolution although we were curious as to why there was a differing number of mice in the vancomycin control and vehicle control groups. Figure 5: Labelling on Figure 5D did not explain why there were three different heat maps for each group of bacteria tested. Further details on this figure are required to aid reader comprehension.
Are specific analyses performed using methods that are consistent with answering the specific question?
While difficult to assess this due to insufficient information in the Materials & Methods, we believe that the analyses performed were consistent with other studies in the field.
Is there the appropriate technical expertise in the collection and analysis of data presented?
We identified multiple deficiencies in data presentation in this paper:
Do analyses use the best-possible (most unambiguous) available methods quantified via appropriate statistical comparisons?
We did not identify any deficiencies in statistical analyses, but the authors should explain why a different number of mice were used in Figure 4.
Are controls or experimental foundations consistent with established findings in the field? A review that raises concerns regarding inconsistency with widely reproduced observations should list at least two examples in the literature of such results. Addressing this question may occasionally require a supplemental figure that, for example, re-graphs multi-axis data from the primary figure using established axes or gating strategies to demonstrate how results in this paper line up with established understandings. It should not be necessary to defend exactly why these may be different from established truths, although doing so may increase the impact of the study and discussion of discrepancies is an important aspect of scholarship.
Experiments and controls are consistent with other studies in the field that show that Cannabis sativa has antimicrobial properties.
Quality: Completeness (1–3 scale) SCORE = 1.5
Does the collection of experiments and associated analysis of data support the proposed title- and abstract-level conclusions? Typically, the major (title- or abstract-level) conclusions are expected to be supported by at least two experimental systems.
The experiments do not adequately support the conclusions stated in the abstract. The title is quite ambiguous.
Are there experiments or analyses that have not been performed but if “true” would disprove the conclusion (sometimes considered a fatal flaw in the study)? In some cases, a reviewer may propose an alternative conclusion and abstract that is clearly defensible with the experiments as presented, and one solution to “completeness” here should always be to temper an abstract or remove a conclusion and to discuss this alternative in the discussion section.
Quality: Reproducibility (1–3 scale) SCORE = 3
Figure by figure, were experiments repeated per a standard of 3 repeats or 5 mice per cohort, etc.?
As mentioned above, it is not clear whether the sample size (n) for experiments in Figure 2 represent a single experiment with multiple replicates or multiple different experiments.
Is there sufficient raw data presented to assess rigor of the analysis?
Yes, we believe enough raw data is presented.
Are methods for experimentation and analysis adequately outlined to permit reproducibility?
Quality: Scholarship (1–4 scale but generally not the basis for acceptance or rejection) SCORE = 2
Has the author cited and discussed the merits of the relevant data that would argue against their conclusion?
Has the author cited and/or discussed the important works that are consistent with their conclusion and that a reader should be especially familiar when considering the work?
Yes, although their discussion on CBG as a natural defense against plant pathogens could be broadened.
Specific (helpful) comments on grammar, diction, paper structure, or data presentation (e.g., change a graph style or color scheme) go in this section, but scores in this area should not to be significant bases for decisions.