Next Article in Journal
Why Do Muse Stem Cells Present an Enduring Stress Capacity? Hints from a Comparative Proteome Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Do COVID-19 Infections Result in a Different Form of Secondary Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
Previous Article in Journal
Lysines Acetylome and Methylome Profiling of H3 and H4 Histones in Trichostatin A—Treated Stem Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Human Milk Antibodies against S1 and S2 Subunits from SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-229E in Mothers with a Confirmed COVID-19 PCR, Viral SYMPTOMS, and Unexposed Mothers
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Computational Selectivity Assessment of Protease Inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(4), 2065; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22042065
by André Fischer 1,†, Manuel Sellner 1,†, Karolina Mitusińska 2,†, Maria Bzówka 2,†, Markus A. Lill 1,*, Artur Góra 2,* and Martin Smieško 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(4), 2065; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22042065
Submission received: 4 January 2021 / Revised: 8 February 2021 / Accepted: 11 February 2021 / Published: 19 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue COVID-19 and Molecular Studies in Biology and Chemistry)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a nicely written article about using computational methods to access protease inhibitors against sars-cov2. I recommend publication of this article in IJMS.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive feedback!

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-done piece of work. The authors applied a series of computational approaches to assess the selectivity and potential toxicity of 33 reported SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors. In this work, the potential off-targets were chosen reasonably, the protocols for computational methods were validated using existing experimental data, the results were solid, and the discussion was insightful. I believe this work will be a useful guide for both academia and industry.

My major suggestion:

  1. Since there is no experimental result to support the conclusion in this work, which is understandable, I would suggest applying more expensive free energy calculations (e.g., MM-PBSA, QM-MM) to a subset of the docking results to further validate the robustness of the conclusion. But this is not absolutely required.

A few minor points:

  1. During the reviewing process, a few vaccines were already released. Please adjust the introduction accordingly.
  2. Please provide brief descriptions in Table 1 about why each protein is considered as an anti-target or not.
  3. Please consider explaining why these eight proteases were selected in the study early in the introduction.
  4. I am not sure how useful or easy-to-understand the binding-mode images in the figures are. I feel the authors could present the information in simpler 2D images.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for constructive comments on our manuscript. We hope the changes alleviated all concerns.

Please, consult the attached file with all answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop