Review Reports - Antibodies as Tools for Characterization, Isolation and Production Enhancement of Anti-Cancer Drugs and Steroidal Hormones from Ginsenoside and Solasodine Glycoside: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to the titel, this review should review monoclonal antibodies used for the development of pharmaceuticals - which is too generic. A more precise titel would prevent misunderstandings. In detail: ~95% of the review is dealing with ginsenosides / steroide hormones. However, nothing if found in the titel indicating this subject. Therefore, please change the titel to a more topic-oriented one (e.g. Antibodies as tools for characterization, isolation and production enhancement of sterioidal hormones...?)

For the reader it would be of higher benefit to read more about the antibodies themsselves, e.g. strategies of immunogen synthesis, characteristics such as affinity, selectivity, availability. Instead, a very long story about steroidal hormones is told. This is the wrong topic under the respective titel.

Figures only show the chemical structures. But they could also highlight the part of the structure recognized by the Ab or scFv. In addition, strategies should be illustrate with figure. Chemical structures can be found in Wikipedia. They themselves are not new without adding more knowledge.

Corrections in detail:

The titel of the publication need to be more specific
Row 32: „heart disease“ not „hart disease”
Row 35: delete “in”
You use quite often “and so on”. If prior in the sentence there is already an “such as” or “including” you don’t need to put “and so on” at the end of the sentence.
Can you add a citation for “The Divine Farmer's Classic of Materia Medica”, e.g. book with ISBN number ?
Row 68: “has” instead of “have”
Row 70: a space is missing “inChina”
Can you add a citation for the letter from China to Canada?
Row 72: delete “was found” (already “they discovered” in the same sentence)
Row 79: can you add a citation supporting your reference about medicinal properties described in “Honzo Tome”
Figure 1: source of the pictures is missing.
Figure 2: source of structure or software used for drawing should be named
Row 72: shouldn’t be “ssp.” Be written in italic as well? The species “Panax ssp.” Was not introduced in the text before. Please connect it to the previous text.
Row 83: “structures”; consider using “namely” instead of “like”
Figure 2 legend: “gingsenoside” always with lower case beginning. Use the same text style. Please include in the legend which one is of “triol” type and which one is of the “diol” type and if possible label it in the figure to make it more easily readable. Would it make more sense to understand the following article to show the structure of ginsenoside Rg3 instead of Rb1?
Row 93: consider changing the place ot the word “established” (… and analytical methods using individual MAbs were established).
Row 103: add dot “et al.”
Figure 3: Consider higher-quality structure drawing of “R”, cite the source of software used.
Rows 118-120: I don’t understand this sentence. Reference is missing
Row 121: delete “s” from “materials”
Row 122: delete “are”
Row 122: add comma after “in fact”, consider replacing “medicines” with “drugs”
Row 124: add space before citation.
Abbreviations for Ac, Mab
Row 125: replace “doble” by “double”
Figure 4 refers to row 98-100, however in row 126 another process is described. Is the figure in this later process missing?Section
Section: Eastern Blotting – exemplary data would be nice for illustration
Row 149: delete “s” in resources”
Consider renaming of section 2 to relate it to antibodies. Name the specificity, affinity availability of antibodies
Section 2.2 and 3.2 seems to be a copy from a “materials and methods” part of another paper. I t is way too detailed and written in the past tense in contrast to all other sections and unusual for a review.
Row 174: change “cleavage” in “cleaved”
Rewrite sentence row 181
Section 3.1: add spaces after “:”. What means “which is subject of this study”. Is this paster &copy from another paper?
Section 3.1: please characterize the antibody in more detail. Is it available commercially?
Row 219: add “the” same
Row226: add “an” insoluble complex
Section 3.3: explain better how biosynthesis of saponins is enhanced by the Ab-Ag-complex formation. Add maybe a figure.
Row 231: add proper brackets to citation 55
Row 232 “S. khasianum” in italic ?
Row 235: dot instead of comma before “This”
Row 237: bracket in black for the citation
Section 3.4 consider adding “s” to hormone
2 Figure #4 !!!!!! correct !!!
Figure 4: cite the origine of the structures or the software used for chemical drawing. Letter size should be identical (solasodine and 16-dehydro…)
Row 250: brackets of citation in black
Row 253: rewrite…and an eastern blotting method was developed…
Section 4: the text style is misleading. It seems that the Mabs are the achievement of the present paper…
Figure 5: origin/source of the picture?
Row 261: add “s” glycosides”, rewrite whole sentence
Row 263: “the author developed” is not suitable for a review. It suits for an original paper
Funding: “external funding” is totally inprecise please specify
Citiations need to be reedited, are totally inconsistent (sometimes with issue number, sometimes without, sometimes with https://doi sometimes just "doi:” sometimes with spaces (e.g. . 2015; 9(1):23-32.) somteitmes without spaces (e.g. 2016;June 30:5738694)…

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please thoroughly reread and correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review attampts to summarize the author's long-standing work on the use of monoclonal and recombinant antibodies to study and manipulate natural products, particularly ginsenocides from Panax species and solasodine glycosides from Solanum khasianum. The topic is interesting and niche wherein antibody applications in natural-product chemistry are indeed less commonly reviewed compared with their biomedical counterparts. The manuscript also provides useful historical and methodological context. However, the paper would benefit from substantial revision to improve clarity, structure, and scientific balance.

Major coments:

The manuscript reads more like a chronological narrative of the author's own research rather than a balanced, critical review of the field. It would be valuable to expand the discussion to include other groups' contributions, recent developments in antibody engineering, and emerging analytical or production technologies that relate to natural-product research.
Many paragraphs are dense and sometimes repetitive, making it difficult for readers unfamiliar with the topic to follow. Subheadings could be reorganized to clearly separate (i) monoclonal antibody generation, (ii) analytical applications, and (iii) biotechnological or breeding applications. Figures and tables should be referenced and described more clearly in the text.
The review mostly describes experimental steps and outcomes but rarely discusses limitations, challenges, or comparisons with alternative approaches (e.g., LC-MS-based quantification vs. immunoassay). Including a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of antibody-based detection in plant system would strengthen the manuscript's critical tone.
The English is understandable but often literal and awkward. Several sentences are overly long or contain grammatical inconsistencies. A careful language edit by a native or professional editor is strongly recommended.
Most citations are from the author's previous works, with limited coverage of literature published in the past 5-10 years. It would be useful to include more recent references discussing recombinant antibody technologies, plant metabolic engineering, and immunochemical analytics.
The figures (e.g., Figs. 1-5) are not sufficiently labeled or discussed. The legends should be expanded to explain abbreviations, reaction schemes, and relevance to the text.

Minor comments

The abstract could be rewritten to clearly define the objective of the review and the key take-home messages rather than listing results.
Check consistency of chemical names (e.g., solasodine - solasodine glycoside) and ensure uniform use of italics for species names.
The phrase "missile-type molecule breeding" needs clearer explanation or citation.
Figure numbering in the main text should match the actual order.
Ensure all references follow the journal's formatting style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A careful language edit by a native or professional editor is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To start with the title is misleading: ‘Monoclonal Antibodies Contributing to the Development of Pharmaceutical: A Comprehensive Review” instead the paper is on two families of compounds: the one derived from Ginseng and the one derives from Solamargine. The language expression is not very good, I think that because a sentence is “C. A. Meyer is the most famous and important natural product called as ginseng.” C.A. Meyer sounds like a person name. Another strange sentence is ‘Following expeditions by Canadian Indigenous peoples,.. “ what do they mean by ‘Canadian Indigenous peoples” ?

Than, they speak of “antitumour activity” through the paper: but which types? Do they mean generic?

The eastern blot should be better explained, not many people are familiar with it.

The paper is than full of problems like the one illustrated above.

The authors should be encouraged to submit a new paper 1) well written in English, 2) with a proper title, something like “Evaluation of the pharmaceutical properties of Ginseng and Solamargine.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the present format is a tract incomprehensible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author had tried his/her best to answer the questions raised. Manuscript improved a lot.

Author Response

I sincerely thank you for your valuable time and thoughtful comments. When I sost next, I will keep your feedback in mind as I prepare my draft. Thank you very much again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Why the authors do not say in the title that their review is mostly about Ginsenois?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English has improved.

Author Response

The author missed the title because the sending one is the previous version. Therefore, please accept the title "Antibodies as tools for characterization, isolation and production enhancement of anti-cancer drugs and steroidal hormones from ginsenoside and solasodine glycoside: a comprehensive review".