Next Article in Journal
Tomato Bushy Stunt Virus Nanoparticles as a Platform for Drug Delivery to Shh-Dependent Medulloblastoma
Next Article in Special Issue
Generation of a Retargeted Oncolytic Herpes Virus Encoding Adenosine Deaminase for Tumor Adenosine Clearance
Previous Article in Journal
Fractal-Percolation Structure Architectonics in Sol-Gel Synthesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intratumoral Canine Distemper Virus Infection Inhibits Tumor Growth by Modulation of the Tumor Microenvironment in a Murine Xenograft Model of Canine Histiocytic Sarcoma
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Concepts in Oncolytic Adenovirus Therapy

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(19), 10522; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms221910522
by Klaus Mantwill 1, Florian Gerhard Klein 1, Dongbiao Wang 1, Sruthi Vasantamadhava Hindupur 1, Maximilian Ehrenfeld 1, Per Sonne Holm 2 and Roman Nawroth 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(19), 10522; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms221910522
Submission received: 27 August 2021 / Revised: 23 September 2021 / Accepted: 24 September 2021 / Published: 29 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oncolytic Virotherapy 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is well written and very exhaustive. The authors probably could shorten the clinical trials by including the most promising ones.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a narrative review focused on genetic changes important for tumour-specific replication, transgene expression, interaction with the immune system and summarizes the ongoing clinical trials.

It has strong points, but authors should made the following amendments:

Although it is a narrative review, the abstract section should obtain a more structured format.

The introduction section should contain the current gap in the literature leading to the rationale of the current paper.

There must be a search strategy and a schedule from the start till the end of the paper, together with a separate section with the limitations of the study.

Authors should also indicate the originality of their figures.

The conclusion should adhere to their exact findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The 3 first comments should be revisited.

As for the modification of Cunliffe et al, 2020, authors should state that they have had the relevant permission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop