24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

sunlei8753

木虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 5144.5
散金: 10
红花: 2
帖子: 189
在线: 468.5小时
虫号: 622789
注册: 2008-10-11
性别: GG
专业: 功能与智能高分子

[求助] 这样审稿意见要不要argue？已有2人参与

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: In this work, the authors presented an idea by using pH sensitive mesoporous silica nanoparticles for selective delivery of doxorubicin into cancerous cells. They provided a set of characterization data for functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles and showed some in-vitro studies. The loading capacity and encapsulation efficiency at different pH and the use of the Ridger-Peppas model are something interesting in this work. The manuscript can be considered for publication after addressing the following concerns.
1.    The authors should improve the language. They used some sentences, like "what is more", are rather informal. In scheme 1 part (B), the NH3H2O should be changed appropriately with right subscript. In the section "2.5 Encapsulation efficiency (EE) and loading capacity (LC) of anti-cancer drug doxorubicin (DOX)", the equation of "AE%" should be changed to "EE%".
2.    The part where the fluorescence of doxorubicin was measured "dox solution was determined by using a fluorescence spectrophotometer at 485 nm" and in another part "free DOX was determined by using a fluorescence spectrophotometer at 485 nm and a calibration": the wavelength of 485 nm refers to the excitation or emission of doxorubicin? If it refers to the excitation of doxorubicin, it should be mentioned as "using an excitation of 485 nm".
3.    In section "2.7 Analysis of in vitro release", dox release mechanism was determined by the amount of insulin released versus time using a mathematical model. Then, in the results and discussion section Table 2, they did not mention the use of any mathematical model for section 2.7. Thus, the detailed information for mathematical model and Ridger-Peppas model should be provided.
4.    Confocal images should be obtained to further support the in-vitro cell experiments.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is about the preparation and application of pH-responsive mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN) as drug-release system. The authors characterized their product in detail, and the drug-loading/release and in vitro cell experiment also had been done. In my opinion, the manuscript could be accepted in the journal after minor revision.
Specific comments:
1.    About the MSN pore size, here the size was 6.7 nm and generally 3 nm was obtained when CTAB was used as the template. Why?
2.    For the particle characterization, the DLS size should be given to define the particle size and stability. In the other hand, the surface charge is important for the system, thus the zeta potential of the particle should be measured.
3.    For the hydrolysis of the boroester bond between CS-LA and APBA-MSN, the authors should give some evidence.
4.    About the pH-responsive MSN based on polymers, some progress have been reported, such as J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21, 9239; Inter. J. Pharm., 2011, 421, 388; Inter. J. Pharm., 2013, 450, 296; Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm., 2013, 84, 91. The authors should cite them to make the manuscript more comprehensive.

编辑

Dear Prof.
The reports to your manuscript are enclosed below. The reviewers raised many major concerns regarding the novelty of the work, the experimental study and data quality and analysis, and commented about lacking citations and proper languish. Unfortunately, such reports do not allow publication in our journal. We hope you will find the reviews useful for advancing of the work towards future submission.
  要不要argue？

回复此楼