Review Reports
- Sang-Soo Kim1,2,†,
- Caroline Doherty1,3,† and
- Manish Moghe1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Naresh Poondla Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript describes the past and current knowledge on anti-tumor potency of nano medicine-based gene delivery for tumor suppressor RB94. In addition, author summarized potential of scL-RB94 to improve outcomes in lung cancer patients It is informative and well-written research paper.
My only concern is that figure legends and titles are not clearly labeled and current references must be cited.
I would like to recommend this article to be published in cancers based on author's careful revision on references and figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of “Nanomedicine-based gene delivery for a truncated tumor suppressor RB94 promotes lung cancer immunity” by Kim et al.
This study provided interesting observations in the anti-tumor function of nanomedicine scL-RB94 and would be interested by many. Overall, it is well written and the analysis are rigorous. I would recommend this manuscript for publish.
One remaining question is that whether scL-RB94 has a physiological impact on the control animals? I saw that human cells are not affected by RB94 but not sure for animals. It would be good to mention or discuss this in the manuscript.
Minor comment: Few statistical analyses are missing in the figures, e.g., Figure 2D, Figure 4BD.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It was a manuscript about the potential application of scL-RB94 for the treatment of lung cancer. Here are some comments on this sudy that should be considered before publication:
1- Please introduce all the abbreviations at their first usage.
2- Please separate in vitro tests from the in vivo ones in the method part.
3- DLS is not a sufficient test for the evaluation of nanomaterials. You need to add other types of characterization tests for that.
4- Please add the XTT results of other cell lines (A549, H596, and H23), as well.
5- Why the volume of the H358 tumor didn’t change after 10 days of treatment with scL-RB94, while the tumor weight was decreased?
6- Please use more updated references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for addressing the comments.