Raman Spectroscopic Algorithms for Assessing Virulence in Oral Candidiasis: The Fight-or-Flight Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a very well written report on a comprehensive study of Raman spectroscopy and imaging of oral fungi. The authors explored a range of possible markers and despite some setbacks eventually found a useful relationship that could have diagnostic value and that is relevant because it relates to pathogenicity. 

Only minor revisions are needed.

1. Please include a brief statement about the limitations of the study not already mentioned and point out directions for future work, e.g. (1) comparing the 3 Raman parameters, RGα3/α6, RCyt, and RClys, before and after various treatments (such as topical or systemic antifungal medicines, biocides etc), (2) comparing the 3 Raman parameters for C. albicans from health subjects with no oral fungal disease, and (3) comparing local microenvironments, e.g. fungi from dentures/appliances versus from the tongue or other oral mucosal sites of infection.

2. In the first paragraph of the introduction, please revise this sentence as follows: "In contrast, standard Candida strains are isolated and long-term cultured without exposure to external factors or stessors, so they exist in a conspicuously stress-free state."

3. In table 2 for sample 4 please correct the spelling from C alhicans to C. albicans.

4. In the references, there are superfluous numbers at the start of each reference that can be removed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Raman spectroscopic algorithms for assessing virulence in oral candidiasis: The fight-or-flight response” is interesting. I have some considerations to make in order to improve the manuscript and attract its reading

- Title is not very appropriate for a research article

- Concisely outline the objectives and conclusion

- The manuscript should be restructured, differentiating between material and method, results and discussion. The discussion is not consistent with the results section. Results and discussion are mixed.

- There are paragraphs that can be eliminated, for example some related to reference 7. It is not necessary to explain findings from previous research. - The authors should control self-citations, for example 7, 15, 34….

- The 2^nd and 3^rd paragraph of point 4.1 is a major limitation of the study.

- Where do the 8 patients with candidiasis come from? Do you have the permission of an Ethics Committee?

Thank you very much

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The answers are partially relevant.

Thank you very much