Next Article in Journal
Cardiovascular Characteristics of Patients with Genetic Variation in Desmoplakin (DSP)
Next Article in Special Issue
An Overview of Therapy Guidelines for Cardiac Arrest and the Potential Benefits of Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Transthyretin Gene Variants and Associated Phenotypes in Danish Patients with Amyloid Cardiomyopathy
Review
Peer-Review Record

Nanoparticle-Based Modification of the DNA Methylome: A Therapeutic Tool for Atherosclerosis?

Cardiogenetics 2022, 12(1), 12-23; https://doi.org/10.3390/cardiogenetics12010002
Reviewer 1: Artur Y. Prilepskii
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Cardiogenetics 2022, 12(1), 12-23; https://doi.org/10.3390/cardiogenetics12010002
Received: 25 October 2021 / Revised: 19 December 2021 / Accepted: 31 December 2021 / Published: 6 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cardiogenetics: Feature Papers 2021)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. Line 29: Termin uptake is usually used for “uptake by cell”. For nanoparticles, better use “loading” or “conjugation”.
  2. Line 58: What XX stands for?
  3. Line 59-60: Terms “accumulation” and “infiltration” are better switch between each other.
  4. Line 84: But what about the adverse effects of systemic administration?
  5. You should replace Figure 1 with a comprehensive Table showing the main parameters, advantages, and disadvantages of delivery systems, currently shown in Figure 1.
  6. Line 108, 113 Avoid using “obvious”, especially when you do not mention possible drawbacks. What can be the adverse effects of DNMTi administration?
  7. It is not necessary to add phrases “see [] for a recent review”. Just reference is enough
  8. Line 147: please remove space in “conventional”
  9. You should probably mention some recent reviews about NPs for atherosclerosis treatment (7150/ntno.62730, 10.3390/pharmaceutics12111056) at the beginning of section 4.2.
  10. Please pay attention to the abbreviation NP (nanoparticle). In some places, it should be corrected in plural form – NPs (nanoparticles), like lines 147, 151, etc.
  11. Section 6: there is no need for a separate section for diabetes in an AS-focused paper. You can mention diabetes application somewhere when you mention DNMT

 

There is a mixed impression of the manuscript. The only section relevant to the title of the article is 4.1. In fact, it presents only one DNA demethylation approach that can be applied now. The remaining sections are represented general approaches to the treatment of atherosclerosis with nanoparticles, or even diabetes and cancer.

In this work, I would like to see more information on DNA methylation and demethylation concerning atherosclerosis since section 3 now gives minimal information.

Section 2 is also very short and does not reflect the deeper essence of atherosclerosis. It must either be expanded to a full-fledged section or combined with the Introduction.

 

 

Author Response

We thank this reviewer for thoroughly reading our work and for the valuable suggestions.

  1. Line 29: Termin uptake is usually used for “uptake by cell”. For

nanoparticles, better use “loading” or “conjugation”.

Our response: We changed the text accordingly.

 

  1. Line 58: What XX stands for?

Our response: It was an error, apologies (now line 56).

 

  1. Line 59-60: Terms “accumulation” and “infiltration” are better

switch between each other.

Our response: We changed the text accordingly (now line 59-62).

 

  1. Line 84: But what about the adverse effects of systemic

administration?

Our response: We added a dedicated paragraph (now lines 113-115).

 

  1. You should replace Figure 1 with a comprehensive Table

showing the main parameters, advantages, and disadvantages

of delivery systems, currently shown in Figure 1.

Our response: We created a new Table 1 and eliminated the figure. We hope that the table will be acceptable.

 

  1. Line 108, 113 Avoid using “obvious”, especially when you do

not mention possible drawbacks. What can be the adverse

effects of DNMTi administration?

Our response: We changed the text accordingly. We hope that the issue is suitably addressed by the new dedicated paragraph (now lines 113-115).

 

  1. It is not necessary to add phrases “see [] for a recent review”.

Just reference is enough

Our response: We changed the text accordingly throughout the manuscript.

 

  1. Line 147: please remove space in “conventional”

Our response: We changed the text accordingly.

 

  1. You should probably mention some recent reviews about NPs

for atherosclerosis treatment (7150/ntno.62730,

10.3390/pharmaceutics12111056) at the beginning of section

4.2.

Our response: We introduced that reference and an additional one.

 

  1. Please pay attention to the abbreviation NP (nanoparticle). In

some places, it should be corrected in plural form – NPs

(nanoparticles), like lines 147, 151, etc.

Our response: We changed the text accordingly throughout the manuscript.

 

  1. Section 6: there is no need for a separate section for diabetes

in an AS-focused paper. You can mention diabetes application

somewhere when you mention DNMT

Our response: We eliminated that section.

 

There is a mixed impression of the manuscript. The only section

relevant to the title of the article is 4.1. In fact, it presents only one

DNA demethylation approach that can be applied now. The

remaining sections are represented general approaches to the

treatment of atherosclerosis with nanoparticles, or even diabetes

and cancer.

Our response: Thanks for the frank assessment. We added brief explanations for those sections (lines 23-24; 255-257; 277-279).

 

In this work, I would like to see more information on DNA

methylation and demethylation concerning atherosclerosis since

section 3 now gives minimal information.

Our response: We added the relevant information to section 3.

 

Section 2 is also very short and does not reflect the deeper

essence of atherosclerosis. It must either be expanded to a fullfledged

section or combined with the Introduction.

Our response: We expanded section 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provided a comprehensive review on the advances on the topic of nanoparticles-based strategies to modify the DNA methylome of atherosclerosis. 

The article is well-written and no major issues were found.

However, the authors should consider removing the paragraphs 5 and 6, because they are not focused on atherosclerosis, which represents the focus of this review.

Author Response

The authors provided a comprehensive review on the advances on

the topic of nanoparticles-based strategies to modify the DNA

methylome of atherosclerosis.

The article is well-written and no major issues were found.

However, the authors should consider removing the paragraphs 5

and 6, because they are not focused on atherosclerosis, which

represents the focus of this review.

Our response: We are grateful for the positive review. We added paragraphs to explain why we believe that some information outside the atherosclerosis field needs to be included (lines 23-24; 255-257; 277-279). We hope that the reviewer will find our response acceptable.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made some minor edits to the text, which made the article looks more scientifically significant. Of course, more information could be added directly about the main topic (DNA methylome and its applications to AS). However, obviously, the article can be accepted in this form.

Back to TopTop