RNase A Domain-Swapped Dimers Produced Through Different Methods: Structure–Catalytic Properties and Antitumor Activity
and Giovanni Gotte 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the authors studied RNase A oligomerization and in detail structural and/or functional properties associtaed to two different protocols tested. Data and strategies are well presented and discussed.
Some minor comments for the paper are mentioned below:
- Stability of RNase A species should also be evaluated in the presence of chemical denaturants;
- Toxicity on tumoral cells would require at least one other cell line;
- Discussion paragraph is too long and speculative;
Moreover, there are some typographical errors, or venial inaccuracies, to correct:
Ex:
- In paragraph 2.11, page 5, please add "o" to "tw";
- In the legend of figure 5, lyophlization must be replaced with lyophilization;
- Verbs in the present and past tense are often used in the same paragraphs (see paragraphs 2.6, 3.5
- in the legends of figures 3 and 4, pH values of the buffers should be added
- In the title of paragraph 3.9, "on human melanoma" is more appropriate than "in human melanoma"
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The ability of RNase A to oligomerize through domain swapping has been one of the most intriguing phenomena discovered in the early years of structural biology. Since then, this aspect has been the subject by a remarkable number of studies. In this scenario, Gotte and coworkers report a comparative analysis of the biophysical and functional properties of domain-swapped RNase A dimers obtained using different experimental protocols. Considering that the topic is of interest, that the experiments are technically sound and that the manuscript is clearly written, I personally believe that this work can be considered for publication. I would suggest a mention either in the Introduction or in the Discussion to the RNaseA mutants that favor oligomerization.
Minor point
In line 243 “tw “ should be “two”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
