24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1062  |  回复: 5
当前主题已经存档。

jiaolijuan

铜虫 (小有名气)

[交流] chem comm rejection letter

Communication  Ref.: B818975G

Title : New water-soluble BODIPY dye highly selective for binding Cu2+: synthesis and fluorescence studies

I regret to inform you that the above manuscript has not been recommended for publication in ChemComm. In particular, referee C indicated that insufficient evidence for the characterisation of new compounds has been provided to support the claims made in your article. Further guidelines and information on the characterisation criteria can be found at http://www.rsc.org/publishing/Re ... olicy/CC/sect3.asp. Please see the comments in the referee reports below.



However, in future you may like to submit a new manuscript including further work as detailed by referees A and C. Please note that any new version of the manuscript must answer all of the referees’ criticisms and will again be subject to review. If you decide to submit a new version to ChemComm, please quote the above reference number, and also include a detailed letter describing the changes made in response to the referees’ comments. Please note that if you choose to resubmit the work, I can offer no guarantee of eventual publication.



Alternatively, you may be interested to know that I have shown your work to the Editor of New Journal of Chemistry (NJC) Dr Denise Parent (www.rsc.org/NJC) who has agreed that a full paper based on the work, addressing the comments made by the referees and with the addition of an experimental section, would be suitable for submission to NJC. If you would like to submit a future version of this work as a full paper to NJC, and require any further information then please contact the NJC team on NJC@rsc.org or upload your manuscript files using your ReSourCe account. Please remember to quote the ChemComm reference number above in all correspondence, and note that the paper would again be subject to peer review.



Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.



Yours sincerely,



Emma Shiells



*************************************************

Dr Emma Shiells

Assistant Editor ChemComm

Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House

Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, UK   CB4 0WF

Tel  +44 (0)1223 432365  Fax  +44 (0)1223 420247

www.rsc.org and www.chemsoc.org

chemcomm@rsc.org   shiellse@rsc.org

*************************************************

***ChemComm has a new impact factor of 5.14***

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Jo ... 7_impact_factor.asp




Report A



* HIGH QUALITY AND EXCITING  : Yes



* SIGNIFICANCE RATING  : Significant



* TOP 10 PERCENT  : No



* RESULTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE SUPPLIED  : No



* APPROPRIATE AND BALANCED CITATIONS  : Yes



* RECOMMENDATION  : Reconsider - after major revisions



The boron dipyrromethanes are increasingly studied as fluorescent sensors and dyes, thus the development of new chemical strategies  to these core dyes (as described in this manuscript)are important.  The fluorescent properties and metal ion binding properties of the target compound (1) are the main focus of this paper, and there are minor issues that need to be specifically addressed before publication.



The authors claim that unsymmetrical BDiPy is important, but give no good reason why.

The organometallic coupling reactions on 3 may be feasible, but just a likely may not. Is there literature precedent?



Figure 1 needs replacing and a new caption. Much is made of the water solubility, but the uv-vis and fluorescence data in Figure 1 are in DMSO, and later this is said to be similar to the spectra in 10%DMSO in buffered water.  Please put the spectra in the 10% DMSO in water in the manuscript and the DMSO data in the ESI. The caption is ambiguous and cannot be interpreted without the text. I think using thin solid lines for the standard, 3, and thicker for compound 1 may make it easier to discern.  Secondly, the caption needs to explain the experimental details better.  These spectra are obviously normalized (unless the extinction coefficients and quantum yields are identical for 1 and 3). Thus the exact concentrations used for both compounds should be reported, the excitation wavelengths, and the O.D. at that wavelength.  The diiodo compound 3 should have a substantially quenched fluorescence because of the heavy atom effect.



Figure 2 must have a mistake (F/F0 axis labels, numbers, caption?).  As I read the graph and the caption, 200 eq. of these metal ion INCREASE the fluorescence by about 1000-fold (F/F0).  



It is mentioned on page 3 that Fig. 2 indicates selectivity in the presences of other metal ions.  This is not true, it indicates a signal for each metal ion independent of others. This shows a unique sensitivity for Cu(II), NOT selectivity.

Selectivity must be shown in the presence of the other metal ions (e.g. 200 eq. Mn(II), or a mixture of several metal ions).  This later selectivity data should be shown, it is not in the ESI.



Since the di(2-hydroxyethyl)amines have know metal ion binding abilities it is surprising that there is so much selectivity towards Cu(II). But as the authors alluded to, this may be a kinetic rather than a thermodynamic effect.  Binding was only monitored after 1 minute. What is the relative intensity (e.g. a correct version of figure 2) for each metal ion after 30 min? Or better yet, monitor the fluorescence intensity versus time for the metal ions.

“…few studies have been to date reported in the literature.” Change to: “.. few studies have been reported.”



Change “invaluable” to valuable.

Purity cannot be assessed as Chem. Com. Requires without the NMR spectra.



This is a good contribution to this literature, but needs substantial revisions before publishing. This should especially include showing the selectivity (sensitivity is shown) and the related kinetics of metal ion binding of the other metal ions.





Report B



* HIGH QUALITY AND EXCITING  : No



* SIGNIFICANCE RATING  : Routine



* TOP 10 PERCENT  : No



* RESULTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE SUPPLIED  : Yes



* APPROPRIATE AND BALANCED CITATIONS  : Yes



* RECOMMENDATION  : Reject



I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript in ChemComm because it presents quite preliminary results: there are no hints of the quenching mechanism and solubility in water is still not 100%.





Report C



* HIGH QUALITY AND EXCITING  : Yes



* SIGNIFICANCE RATING  : Routine



* TOP 10 PERCENT  : No



* RESULTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE SUPPLIED  : No



* APPROPRIATE AND BALANCED CITATIONS  : Yes



* RECOMMENDATION  : Reconsider - after major revisions



* APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE JOURNAL  : Resubmit to:



* SUGGESTED_ALTERNATIVE_JOURNAL  : NJ



XXXX have prepared a BODIPY-based indicator for Cu2+. While the synthesis appears to be relatively novel, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the fluorescence properties of the molecule. There are also some problems with the conclusions made based on the methods used.



1. There is no supporting information provided that indicates the purity of the newly reported compounds.

2. The authors are overly reliant on emission spectroscopy to interrogate the metal complexes in solution. The anilino nitrogens are conjugated to the fluorophore, and significant changes in abs spect. would be predicted upon the addition of metals to the solution. The authors should look at the metal binding by UV-vis.

3. Nagano has shown in a series of JACS articles that BODIPY emission is dependent on solvent polarity, while the authors have shown the molecule has some water solubility, it is unclear if the molecule would partition selectively into water over less polar solvents. This is particularly relevant to potential applications, if the compound still has significant hydrophobicity, it could "stick" to biological membranes and give false readings. The authors present biological imaging as a possible application, but have not demonstrated even with these in vitro experiments that this has a chance of working.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

prrsw

金虫 (正式写手)

楼主继续加油
2楼2009-07-07 18:27:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qzhang6568

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
这审稿意见不错啊,人家也让你再投了。那好好改改,再投吧
3楼2009-07-07 18:34:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

liujiehero

铜虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
仔细按照审稿人的意见修改吧,希望很大啊
4楼2009-07-07 18:43:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

navypang

金虫 (正式写手)

楼主文章顺利
5楼2009-07-07 18:55:40
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xiu_chem

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
应该来说很有希望,但需要改进的地方比较大,不过还是要继努力,希望很大。
6楼2009-07-07 19:33:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 jiaolijuan 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见