Peer-Review Record
A Method for Rapid Screening, Expression, and Purification of Antimicrobial Peptides
Microorganisms 2021, 9(9), 1858; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091858
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Microorganisms 2021, 9(9), 1858; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091858
Submission received: 23 July 2021
/
Revised: 18 August 2021
/
Accepted: 22 August 2021
/
Published: 1 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Antimicrobial Agents and Resistance)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
A very interesting manuscript. The methods and results are well described, but I have questions and suggestions like this:
- How was the concentration of the tested peptides determined?
- Mapping the expression plasmids would be useful
- It would be worth supplementing the description on the methodology of electrophoresis, acrylamide concentration, agarose, etc.
- The names of microorganisms should be written in italics
- General note: in my opinion the results are described too extensively, maybe some of them can be included as Supplementary Materials?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript “A method for rapid screening, expression, and purification of antimicrobial peptides” by Zhang et al described a method for the rapid screening, expression and purification of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), followed by the activity determination. At this stage, I recommend this manuscript be published after minor revision.
- Some repeating expressions or abbreviations, for example, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) was frequently used in the text but not consistent.
- Page 1 line 31, they described AMPs in general. The recent multiple excellent reviews on AMPs should be included (Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: e216–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30327-3, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2021,50, 4932-4973 https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CS01026J).
- Page 1 line 43, they summarised the advantages of AMPs. They should also mention the limitations of AMPs in comparison with conventional antibiotics.
- Page 4 table 1, they should add the AMP numbers and theoretical molecular weight into the table to corresponding AMP 1, 2, 3, ….
- Page 10 figure 5, it is better to have the mass spec to characterise the purified AMPs.
- Page 11 line 278, they claimed “AMP13 and AMP16 was 24.4 uM”. However, it is not correlated with figure 7.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
