Regenerative Cosmetics: Skin Tissue Engineering for Anti-Aging, Repair, and Hair Restoration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper gives an appropriate ideas the  cosmetic  products have to regenerate both body and the hair functions.It reports the main approaches and active materials used at this purpose giving the right ideas on the real cosmetic functions.References reported are sufficient also

Author Response

Thank you for your time and the review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive feedback on the relevance of the topic. We have included some suggestions from the others reviewers for the improvement also.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the presented study provides a comprehensive outline and is informative. The figures within the manuscript are explanatory and well-prepared. However, there are minor issues that need to be corrected.

 

- It is essential to present items such as cells, scaffolds, and signals, in a table format by providing the related research data from the literature.  

- Probably the file uploaded to the system remained track changes as comments among the authors are visible.

- Especially in the subheadings presented as bullet points, for example, under heading 1.3, it might be more logical to present "key components" such as cells, scaffolds, and signals in a diagram. This is because when the authors attempt to provide a well-known explanation for an item like scaffold in bullet points, the reader expects more detailed data. Presenting commonly known information in this manner is unnecessary.

-Similarly, under heading 2.1, presenting the listed data in a table format, in line with the comprehensive structure of the review, would make it clearer which growth factors, vitamins, or proteins enhance collagen production stimulation or which fillers can be applicable for wrinkle reduction.

-On the other hand, for each statement that the authors consider more suitable to be given as bullet points, an explanation should be provided after a colon (":") and should start with capitalized letter.

- Page 9 Lines 345-349: The coherence within this paragraph is not maintained. Because PDMS, PLA or alginate are not animal-derived. However, following the "Hydrogels such as alginate and collagen mimic human tissue but lack mechanical precision," sentence continuing without any comparison with "Animal-derived materials offer realism but raise cost and ethical issues. Innovations like decellularized ECM and silk improve cell environment" causes confusion.  Indicating the advantages and disadvantages of using plant-based, synthetic, or animal-derived materials relative to each other would provide a more meaningful flow. Otherwise, they appear as disconnected informational sentences.

 

Author Response

Overall, the presented study provides a comprehensive outline and is informative. The figures within the manuscript are explanatory and well-prepared. However, there are minor issues that need to be corrected.

Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions for improvement and have carefully considered each of them. We have implemented several changes that we believe will enhance the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript:

- It is essential to present items such as cells, scaffolds, and signals, in a table format by providing the related research data from the literature. 

We agree that presenting data on cells, scaffolds, and signals in a table format would be beneficial. We have created a new table (Table1) summarizing relevant research data from the literature for each of these key components. This table includes details such as cell types, scaffold materials and properties, and signal molecules with their associated functions.

 

- Probably the file uploaded to the system remained track changes as comments among the authors are visible.

We apologize for the oversight with the uploaded file containing track changes, some of the editor changes were visible. We will ensure a clean version of the manuscript is submitted without any internal author comments and another with the changes to easily track the recommendations.

 

- Especially in the subheadings presented as bullet points, for example, under heading 1.3, it might be more logical to present "key components" such as cells, scaffolds, and signals in a diagram. This is because when the authors attempt to provide a well-known explanation for an item like scaffold in bullet points, the reader expects more detailed data. Presenting commonly known information in this manner is unnecessary.

We understand the suggestion to present "key components" as a diagram under heading 1.3. However, we believe that the current table format, thanks to your suggestions, is more effective in this context. We understand the usefulness of a diagram, but in this review the number of figures is limited to 3.

 

-Similarly, under heading 2.1, presenting the listed data in a table format, in line with the comprehensive structure of the review, would make it clearer which growth factors, vitamins, or proteins enhance collagen production stimulation or which fillers can be applicable for wrinkle reduction.

We agree that presenting information on growth factors, vitamins, proteins, and fillers in a table format would enhance clarity and structure under heading 2.1. We have created a new table 2, that will clearly link specific molecules to their functionalities, such as collagen production stimulation or wrinkle reduction.

 

-On the other hand, for each statement that the authors consider more suitable to be given as bullet points, an explanation should be provided after a colon (":") and should start with capitalized letter.

We have revised the use of bullet points throughout the manuscript. Thank you for this observation.

 

- Page 9 Lines 345-349: The coherence within this paragraph is not maintained. Because PDMS, PLA or alginate are not animal-derived. However, following the "Hydrogels such as alginate and collagen mimic human tissue but lack mechanical precision," sentence continuing without any comparison with "Animal-derived materials offer realism but raise cost and ethical issues. Innovations like decellularized ECM and silk improve cell environment" causes confusion.  Indicating the advantages and disadvantages of using plant-based, synthetic, or animal-derived materials relative to each other would provide a more meaningful flow. Otherwise, they appear as disconnected informational sentences.

We acknowledge the confusion arising from the paragraph on biomaterials. We have restructured the paragraph to clearly compare the advantages and disadvantages of using plant-based, synthetic, and animal-derived materials. Ensuring a clear flow by highlighting the unique benefits and drawbacks of each category relative to the others. We hope this will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs associated with different biomaterial sources.

3D SoC models require balancing cost and biomimicry through material selection. Synthetic polymers (PDMS, PCL, PLA) offer affordability and biocompatibility [92, 95-97] but lack the intricate structure of natural tissues. Hydrogels (alginate, collagen) mimic tissues but struggle with maintaining precise mechanical properties [98, 99]. Animal-derived materials (decellularized ECM, silk) provide the most biomimetic environment, closely resembling natural skin, but are expensive and raise ethical concerns [92, 95-97]. Recent innovations like decellularized ECM and silk offer promising solutions, aiming to bridge the gap between affordability and biomimicry.

We believe these revisions will address the minor issues raised and further improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For authors:

Some suggestions and comments for dear author:

In my opinion, the manuscript is acceptable for publication after some important revisions.

1. It is advisable to use English for all affiliations, if possible, to maintain consistency throughout the document.

 2. Please review the entire manuscript and figure captions for any minor grammatical or spelling errors to enhance the overall readability.

 3. Expand on how AI can contribute to better regeneration in this section. This topic holds significant importance for community research and could provide valuable insights.

4. In the same section, consider recommending materials or areas that you believe will garner more attention from researchers in the future.

 

Good Luck

Author Response

Some suggestions and comments for dear author:

In my opinion, the manuscript is acceptable for publication after some important revisions.

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript titled "Regenerative Cosmetics: Skin Tissue Engineering for Anti-Aging, Repair, and Hair Restoration." We appreciate your suggestions for improvement and will address them point-by-point below:

 

1. It is advisable to use English for all affiliations, if possible, to maintain consistency throughout the document.

We apologize for any inconsistencies in the affiliations. Almost all affiliations have been translated into English for the final manuscript submission, but we need to maintain one of them in Spanish because it is mandatory for our institution: https://www.ibsgranada.es/el-instituto/area-investigadores/firma-publicaciones-cientificas/

2. Please review the entire manuscript and figure captions for any minor grammatical or spelling errors to enhance the overall readability.

We appreciate your suggestion to proofread the manuscript and figure captions for grammatical and spelling errors. We thoroughly reviewed the entire document to enhance readability.

3. Expand on how AI can contribute to better regeneration in this section. This topic holds significant importance for community research and could provide valuable insights.

We agree that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly contribute to regenerative cosmetics. We have expanded our review in the section 5, and we hope to cover all your requirements.

4. In the same section, consider recommending materials or areas that you believe will garner more attention from researchers in the future.

 We have added in section 5, new information and references discussing promising materials and research areas that are likely to garner increased attention in the future of regenerative cosmetics.

 

Good Luck

 

By incorporating these suggestions, we believe we can strengthen the overall quality and impact of our manuscript.

 

Thank you again for your valuable feedback.