Gum Acacia- and Gum Tragacanth-Coated Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Physiological Stability, In-Vitro, Ex-Vivo and In-Vivo Activity Evaluations
, Najeeb Ur Rehman 2, Elmoatasim Ibnouf 3,4, Ahmed Alalaiwe 1, Majid Ahmad Ganaie 5 and Ameeduzzafar Zafar 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work described in the present manuscript is consistent with the scope of the journal. Authors described the production and characterization of polymer coated nanoparticles and their biological effects. The experimental work is complete and however the overall structure of the manuscript must be improved. The manuscript has several mistakes regarding the use of abbreviations (sometimes used, sometimes not). The paper needs some improvements to be suitable for publication, therefore major revisions are suggested. Some points should be addressed prior to a possible publication, specifically:
Major comments:
- Title: the title does not reflect the overall work since it looks like only gum tragacanth nanoparticles were studied. However, many other polymers were tested in the first studies and also a big part of the results also discusses the profile of gum acacia derived nanoparticles. Please re-write accordingly.
- Abstract: abstract is too long and the first paragraph, particularly the text from lines 18-23, is more appropriated for the introduction section. Abstract must be rewritten aiming to better summarize the work (objectives, main results, and main conclusion) as a clear and concise text.
- Line 82: the “cellulose derivatives” must be specified.
- Section 2, materials, and methods: there is missing the experimental part regarding the studies in the origin of results presented in figure 7.
- Line 217: after this section, no other subtitles were defined in section 3 (Results). This is quite difficult for the readers to follow the text. Please include more subtitles in section 3, regarding the different topics studied, in similarity with that defined in the section 2.
- Figure 5: Regarding the experiments shown in this figure, it is not clear if the studies were made in the presence or absence of NaOH. Please include this information in the legend and in the text. Also, there is missing the control without any stabilizer (any gum) for a direct comparison. Please include it.
- Lines 256-259: herein, authors started to use another nomenclature to designate both gums, GT and GA, but these abbreviations were not used before and are not used in the next sections. Please decided how to designate the stabilizers and uniformize the entire manuscript accordingly.
- Figure 14, 15 and 16: since in these pictures, the order of the graphics e not the same in figure 15 than in figure 14 and 16, I would like to suggest inserting the name of each condition directly in the graphic. Also, please define the meaning of asterisks in figure 15.
- Line 336: “in vivo findings” does not look a very useful subtitle. Instead, please replace this by the first sentence of the next paragraph (line 337) that looks more objective. The same in lines 348 vs 349.
- Line 337: Once again, more mistakes in using abbreviations. Now the authors started to use “Ag-nanoparticles” instead of SNP or silver nanoparticles (also along the manuscript). Please uniformize it since it looks like the authors were not rigorous in the selection of the nomenclature used for many expressions.
- Discussion: section 4 is really long and not very concise. Maybe an integrated “results and discussion” was a better option. However, this can be ameliorated by, for example, including different subsections and linking these ones with that defined in the sections 2 and 3. Please also try to simplify some conclusions, being more succinct. However, I am really surprised since there is any discussion about any of the biological studies performed (in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo assays). Please include this herein and some note in the section 5 (conclusion).
- Lines 389-391: please justify and indicate the reason to choose these buffers and their relevance for the present work.
Minor comments:
- Line 34: remove “Malvern
- Line 50: missing a comma after “anticancer”
- Line 60: remove the uppercased S in “Silver citrate”
- Line 71: replace “stabilizer” by “stabilizers”
- Line 79: replace “semi natural” by “semi-synthetic”
- Please check all “ab libitum”, “in vivo”, “in vitro” and “ex vivo” expressions along the manuscript. All must be in italic.
- Line 103: replace “aqueos” by “aqueous”
- Line 150: this title must be removed. Section 2.9 must correspond to the subtitle in line 11 and section 2.10 to the subtitle described in line 164. Subtitle in line 18 must be designated as section 2.11
- Line 152: number 2 must be indexed in O2 and CO2 formulae
- Lines 159-160: Ca and K charge must be superscripted; replaced ++ by 2+
- Along all manuscript, define time abbreviations such as “min” and “hr”
- Line 195: replace “redused” by “reduced”
- Line 217: correct “2.2” to “3.2”
- Lines 241-2: some expressions are in italic; previously abbreviatures were used. Please uniformize these.
- Figure 8: legend inside the graphic is not readable. Please correct it
- Line 349: replace “Na” by “Ag” or by “silver”
Author Response
The work described in the present manuscript is consistent with the scope of the journal. Authors described the production and characterization of polymer coated nanoparticles and their biological effects. The experimental work is complete and however the overall structure of the manuscript must be improved. The manuscript has several mistakes regarding the use of abbreviations (sometimes used, sometimes not). The paper needs some improvements to be suitable for publication, therefore major revisions are suggested. Some points should be addressed prior to a possible publication, specifically:
Major comments:
- Title: the title does not reflect the overall work since it looks like only gum tragacanth nanoparticles were studied. However, many other polymers were tested in the first studies and also a big part of the results also discusses the profile of gum acacia derived nanoparticles. Please re-write accordingly.
Response: The gum acacia has been added in the title as suggested.
- Abstract: abstract is too long and the first paragraph, particularly the text from lines 18-23, is more appropriated for the introduction section. Abstract must be rewritten aiming to better summarize the work (objectives, main results, and main conclusion) as a clear and concise text.
Response: The abstract has been re-written.
- Line 82: the “cellulose derivatives” must be specified.
Response: The “cellulose derivatives” are specified as suggested.
- Section 2, materials, and methods: there is missing the experimental part regarding the studies in the origin of results presented in figure 7.
Response: Some samples were subjected to ultrasonication for 120 minutes to compare with the results with 30-minute time period. It has been mentioned now in section 2.1.
- Line 217: after this section, no other subtitles were defined in section 3 (Results). This is quite difficult for the readers to follow the text. Please include more subtitles in section 3, regarding the different topics studied, in similarity with that defined in the section 2.
Response: It has been mentioned now.
- Figure 5: Regarding the experiments shown in this figure, it is not clear if the studies were made in the presence or absence of NaOH. Please include this information in the legend and in the text. Also, there is missing the control without any stabilizer (any gum) for a direct comparison. Please include it.
Response: It has been mentioned now.
- Lines 256-259: herein, authors started to use another nomenclature to designate both gums, GT and GA, but these abbreviations were not used before and are not used in the next sections. Please decided how to designate the stabilizers and uniformize the entire manuscript accordingly.
Response: It has been corrected now.
- Figure 14, 15 and 16: since in these pictures, the order of the graphics e not the same in figure 15 than in figure 14 and 16, I would like to suggest inserting the name of each condition directly in the graphic. Also, please define the meaning of asterisks in figure 15.
Response: Attempts were made to keep the spectra as it was obtained originally, therefore the order of graphics is not similar. Writing each conditions on the graphics was done wherever it was possible, otherwise legends such as (a), (b), (c) were added due to space constraint. The * in the figure 15 has been defined.
- Line 336: “in vivo findings” does not look a very useful subtitle. Instead, please replace this by the first sentence of the next paragraph (line 337) that looks more objective. The same in lines 348 vs 349.
Response: It has been written as suggested.
- Line 337: Once again, more mistakes in using abbreviations. Now the authors started to use “Ag-nanoparticles” instead of SNP or silver nanoparticles (also along the manuscript). Please uniformize it since it looks like the authors were not rigorous in the selection of the nomenclature used for many expressions.
Response: It has been written as suggested.
- Discussion: section 4 is really long and not very concise. Maybe an integrated “results and discussion” was a better option. However, this can be ameliorated by, for example, including different subsections and linking these ones with that defined in the sections 2 and 3. Please also try to simplify some conclusions, being more succinct. However, I am really surprised since there is any discussion about any of the biological studies performed (in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo assays). Please include this herein and some note in the section 5 (conclusion).
Response: The discussion part is long as per the journal guidelines which require discussions in the broadest context possible. The authors agree with the idea of integrating results and discussion, however, due to the journal guidelines and the template requirement it was written separately. Attempts are made to simplify the discussion in addition to putting subsections corresponding to what has been presented in the result sections. The biological studies performed (in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo assays) were added later, and were missed inadvertently in the discussion part. However, the same have been added now in the discussion as well as in the conclusion.
- Lines 389-391: please justify and indicate the reason to choose these buffers and their relevance for the present work.
Response: The selection of these buffers were made to simulate with the pH conditions in body fluids such as gastric fluids, intestinal juice, blood and on the skin in order to understand the stability of SNPs upon oral, parenteral, or dermal applications. It has been added now.
Minor comments:
- Line 34: remove “Malvern
Response: Removed.
- Line 50: missing a comma after “anticancer”
Response: Corrected.
- Line 60: remove the uppercased S in “Silver citrate”
Response: Corrected.
- Line 71: replace “stabilizer” by “stabilizers”
Response: Replaced.
- Line 79: replace “semi natural” by “semi-synthetic”
Response: Replaced.
- Please check all “ab libitum”, “in vivo”, “in vitro” and “ex vivo” expressions along the manuscript. All must be in italic.
Response: Checked and corrected.
- Line 103: replace “aqueos” by “aqueous”
Response: Replaced.
- Line 150: this title must be removed. Section 2.9 must correspond to the subtitle in line 11 and section 2.10 to the subtitle described in line 164. Subtitle in line 18 must be designated as section 2.11
Response: Corrected.
- Line 152: number 2 must be indexed in O2 and CO2 formulae
Response: Corrected.
- Lines 159-160: Ca and K charge must be superscripted; replaced ++ by 2+
Response: Corrected.
- Along all manuscript, define time abbreviations such as “min” and “hr”
Response: Corrected.
- Line 195: replace “redused” by “reduced”
Response: Corrected.
- Line 217: correct “2.2” to “3.2”
Response: Corrected.
- Lines 241-2: some expressions are in italic; previously abbreviatures were used. Please uniformize these.
Response: Corrected.
- Figure 8: legend inside the graphic is not readable. Please correct it.
Response: Legends with lengthy due to detailed information, which were shortened to make it bigger and readable.
- Line 349: replace “Na” by “Ag” or by “silver”
- Response: Replaced.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript title: Gum Tragacanth Coated Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Physiological Stability, In-vitro, Ex-vivo and In-vivo Activity Evaluations
In the current state, the manuscript is not suitable for peer review. It is extremely hard to catch up. Hence I suggest its rejection and resubmission.
1. With 19 figures and 3 tables, the data organization looks very poor, especially in the synthesis and stability studies (until Fig 13). Most of the figures are not making any sense. Please reduce the number of figures. The data can be represented in less than 10 figures.
2. Figure 1, figure 2a and 2b can be merged into one figure
3. All the photos can be merged with the corresponding UV-Vis spectra (just like fig 7).
4. The figures quality should be improved.
5. In Figures 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, the absorbance values shown on figure are not matching with the values on Y-axis. It seems the authors performed vertical translation; in that case Y axis units can be omitted.
6. The manuscript is poorly written. There are several repetitions of the same conclusion. A combined “Results and discussion” section will improve the readability.
Author Response
Manuscript title: Gum Tragacanth Coated Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Physiological Stability, In-vitro, Ex-vivo and In-vivo Activity Evaluations
In the current state, the manuscript is not suitable for peer review. It is extremely hard to catch up. Hence I suggest its rejection and resubmission.
- With 19 figures and 3 tables, the data organization looks very poor, especially in the synthesis and stability studies (until Fig 13). Most of the figures are not making any sense. Please reduce the number of figures. The data can be represented in less than 10 figures.
Response: The manuscript contained several figures in order to report and discuss each and every experiment in the project keeping in mind that number of pages or figures or not a limitation for the journal in question, rather the guidelines of journal asked to report every experiment with complete detail owing to electronic only and not the printed pages. Nevertheless, authors made attempt to reduce the number of figures as suggested by the reviewer.
- Figure 1, figure 2a and 2b can be merged into one figure.
Response: Merged as suggested.
- All the photos can be merged with the corresponding UV-Vis spectra (just like fig 7).
Response: Merged as suggested.
- The figures quality should be improved.
Response: The figure quality has been improved wherever possible.
- In Figures 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, the absorbance values shown on figure are not matching with the values on Y-axis. It seems the authors performed vertical translation; in that case Y axis units can be omitted.
Response: No vertical translation has been done, but spectra were arranged in the order of their peaks and kept apart for better visualization. The values are also written to give an idea about the differences in the peaks.
- The manuscript is poorly written. There are several repetitions of the same conclusion. A combined “Results and discussion” section will improve the readability.
Response: Attempts are made to remove the repetitions. The authors agree with the idea of integrating results and discussion, however, due to the journal guidelines and the template requirement it was written separately. Attempts are made to simplify the discussion in addition to putting subsections corresponding to what has been presented in the result sections.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review comments on “Gum Tragacanth Coated Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Physiological Stability, In-vitro, Ex-vivo and In-vivo Activity Evaluations”
General comments
This is a research article about the preparation of Ag NPs; The work is quite good; the target of the study is clear; the authors found that the gum tragacanth coated exhibits significant antimicrobial, antispasmodic and antidiarrheal activities. The authors used lots of analytical methods to measure the characteristics of the coated Ag NPs. I think the study is good enough for Coatings.
1. Please highlight the importance of gum acacia and gum tragacanth, and why it is needed for the Ag NPs coatings;
2. All figures are good; do you have the TEM images?
3. Is that possible to have a clear image of Fig 17?
Author Response
General comments
This is a research article about the preparation of Ag NPs; The work is quite good; the target of the study is clear; the authors found that the gum tragacanth coated exhibits significant antimicrobial, antispasmodic and antidiarrheal activities. The authors used lots of analytical methods to measure the characteristics of the coated Ag NPs. I think the study is good enough for Coatings.
- Please highlight the importance of gum acacia and gum tragacanth, and why it is needed for the Ag NPs coatings;
Response: The importance has been highlighted as suggested.
- All figures are good; do you have the TEM images?
Response: TEM images are not available, however, Atomic Force Microscopic images are available which are comparable to TEM for the purpose of analysis of silver nanoparticle in current context of investigations.
- Is that possible to have a clear image of Fig 17?
Response: The image quality of the figure has been improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns in the present revision. The modifications and updates performed significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Just a last question: please replace “2.7” by “4.7” (line 662).
I consider the paper now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors well addressed my comments.
