In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models for Screening Topical Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
, Nuria Elizabeth Rocha-Guzmán 1, Rubén Francisco González-Laredo 1, Luis Medina-Torres 2 and José Alberto Gallegos-Infante 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
From my perspective, this is an interesting review paper; however, the following issues have to be addressed carefully.
- Since there is a significant part of the review that goes beyond anti-inflammatory drugs, the title should also reflect the review related to materials properties.
- A review paper should address the recent concerns regarding the area and clarify them. The authors should state some of the main concerns throughout the paper.
- Some Figures and Tables should be closer to the paragraph where they are cited.
- On page 1, line 37-38, the sentence "Local inflammatory mediators include histamine, kinins, and arachidonic acid metabolites, which cause increased capillary permeability, tissue edema, and immune cell infiltration." needs also the following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122003; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.10.088.
- As stated before, the paper is well written, however, an English review is needed to clarify some sentences and correct typo errors.
-The writing needs to be polished. The reviewer suggests rewriting the long sentences (especially the sentences in the Introduction and Conclusion parts) into short ones to make them easily understood. Authors should place the full stop or comma after the reference number in the bracket [ ], not before.
- Authors should suggest their future perspective about the area of concern in the conclusion section.
- Please unify the bibliographical references. Some references are separated by commas, others by hyphens. Please choose which one to use.
- The quality of all figures needs to be improved. Please remember that these figures will be shrunk once the paper is published and no one can read anything as a result.
- There are some formatting and spelling errors in this manuscript, a full-text check should be performed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the suggestions, comments, and questions about our manuscript, next we answered all of them
Regards
Answer to reviewers
Reviewer 1
From my perspective, this is an interesting review paper; however, the following issues have to be addressed carefully.
- Since there is a significant part of the review that goes beyond anti-inflammatory drugs, the title should also reflect the review related to materials properties.
R: Thank you very much for the comment, It was not considered appropriate in the present manuscript, because the release topic could be treated as the main topic itself
- A review paper should address the recent concerns regarding the area and clarify them. The authors should state some of the main concerns throughout the paper.
R: Thank you very much for your comment, several sections have been written and/or added to increase the clarity of the review.
- Some Figures and Tables should be closer to the paragraph where they are cited.
R: Figures and tables have been placed near the text where cited.
- On page 1, line 37-38, the sentence "Local inflammatory mediators include histamine, kinins, and arachidonic acid metabolites, which cause increased capillary permeability, tissue edema, and immune cell infiltration." needs also the following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122003; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.10.088.
R: Thank you very much for the comment, the bibliography was added to the review
- As stated before, the paper is well written, however, an English review is needed to clarify some sentences and correct typo errors.
R: Thank you very much for the comment. A language review was carried out
-The writing needs to be polished. The reviewer suggests rewriting the long sentences (especially the sentences in the Introduction and Conclusion parts) into short ones to make them easily understood. Authors should place the full stop or comma after the reference number in the bracket [ ], not before.
R: the points before the brackets correspond to the abbreviation of et al.
- Authors should suggest their future perspective about the area of concern in the conclusion section.
R: The conclusion was rewritten
- Please unify the bibliographical references. Some references are separated by commas, others by hyphens. Please choose which one to use.
R: Commas were used to separate two citations or discontinuous citations and hyphens for a group of continuous citations.
- The quality of all figures needs to be improved. Please remember that these figures will be shrunk once the paper is published and no one can read anything as a result.
R: The figures with the best quality were attached.
- There are some formatting and spelling errors in this manuscript, a full-text check should be performed.
R: A review was made
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript with the title “In vitro and ex vivo models for screening topical anti-inflammatory drugs” submitted for review is an interesting and relevant work. However, the work contains a number of points that, in my opinion, should be changed/improved for the possibility of the next publication in the journal.
Below is a list of comments regarding the content and structure of the manuscript.
1. I believe that the mathematical equations and technical descriptions of models given in subsection 6 are inappropriate for a manuscript of this level and content. Therefore, I recommend removing this data from the text. Instead of this information, it would be interesting and relevant to see in this part of the work data devoted to the successful application of these methods in the design of drugs of this group of drugs, a discussion of the positive and negative features of these methods, etc.
2. I also believe that the authors should pay more attention to the issue of the interaction of microbiota and 3D cultures and add a description of this material to the main part of the text.
3. Abstract. There is no clear definition of what this work is about? what issues are being discussed? what theoretically and practically significant results are obtained on the basis of this work? Therefore, the abstract requires changes and revisions in order to eliminate the above-mentioned shortcomings.
4. Authors should pay attention to the technical design of the work and the elimination of typos and errors, such as:
- 5th line (list of authors) - remove the dot after Francisco;
- figure 3 - correct the words in the arrows
- 213 line (the same in line 232 and throughout the text) - IFNγ do everything in the same style (as in line 214)
- 223 line - insert a hyphen between the symbols γδ and the letter T.
- make the words in vivo everywhere in italic
- make paragraphs in lines 333, 414, and 538, as well as everywhere in the text where is necessary
I believe that the work needs a major revision and making the specified changes
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The manuscript with the title “In vitro and ex vivo models for screening topical anti-inflammatory drugs” submitted for review is an interesting and relevant work. However, the work contains a number of points that, in my opinion, should be changed/improved for the possibility of the next publication in the journal.
Below is a list of comments regarding the content and structure of the manuscript.
- I believe that the mathematical equations and technical descriptions of models given in subsection 6 are inappropriate for a manuscript of this level and content. Therefore, I recommend removing this data from the text. Instead of this information, it would be interesting and relevant to see in this part of the work data devoted to the successful application of these methods in the design of drugs of this group of drugs, a discussion of the positive and negative features of these methods, etc.
R: Part of section 5 and 6 was rewrote
- I also believe that the authors should pay more attention to the issue of the interaction of microbiota and 3D cultures and add a description of this material to the main part of the text.
R: A subtopic on the microbiome has been added
- Abstract. There is no clear definition of what this work is about? what issues are being discussed? what theoretically and practically significant results are obtained on the basis of this work? Therefore, the abstract requires changes and revisions in order to eliminate the above-mentioned shortcomings.
R The abstract was rewritten
- Authors should pay attention to the technical design of the work and the elimination of typos and errors, such as:
R: suggested corrections were made
- 5th line (list of authors) - remove the dot after Francisco;
- figure 3 - correct the words in the arrows
- 213 line (the same in line 232 and throughout the text) - IFNγ do everything in the same style (as in line 214)
- 223 line - insert a hyphen between the symbols γδ and the letter T.
- make the words in vivo everywhere in italic
- make paragraphs in lines 333, 414, and 538, as well as everywhere in the text where is necessary
I believe that the work needs a major revision and making the specified changes
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors justified the queries made by this reviewer. I think the revised version may be accepted in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors took into account all my comments and wishes and did it at the proper level! I believe that the work can be published in the journal Scientia Pharmaceutica.
