Untangling the Potential of Carbon Quantum Dots in Neurodegenerative Disease
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comment is well-written and informative. The reviewer would like to suggest publish as is.
Author Response
Thank you dear reviewer. We hope that the article will be very highly cited and will be the first in the field to outline the rubric for working on CQDs
Reviewer 2 Report
In this communication the authors focus the biological and clinical applications of carbon quantum dots, with particular reference to the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders. The authors provide a commentary on various aspects of the development process for carbon quantum dots to be used clinically, including the need to resolve, identity and evaluate the individual components of the quantum dot mixtures that are generally produced in terms of both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. The authors also comment on the need to identify the interaction of the quantum dots and their biological target at both the molecular and atomic levels, presenting results highlighting how computational docking studies may be used.
Overall, the commentary highlights important aspects of the biological application of carbon quantum dots and what will be required for these efforts to be effective and reach the clinic. The document is clearly written, and some corrections are required :
Line 39:The statement that carbon quantum dots “are effective in cancer mitigation” should be supported by an appropriate reference.
Line 43: Suggest rewording to “interact directly with mature fibrils and triggered their disaggregation,…”
Line 46: Appropriate references should be included supporting that carbon quantum dots can cross the blood brain barrier.
Lines 67-72: This paragraph needs to be indented and the font changed to match the rest of the document.
Lines 74-78: The figure legend needs to be expanded to include detailed descriptions for panels B and C.
Lines 79-81: This paragraph needs to be expanded to discuss how the quantum dots from tetrahydrocannabinol were prepared and studied, and the significance of the results. Including a reference would be helpful if these results are from a previous publication by the authors.
Line 84: Reference should be superscript (“amyloid protein.2”)
Line 85: The term “pristine GQD’s” should be defined.
Lines 106-107: “in vitro” and “in vivo” need to be italicized.
Lines 114-115: Suggest rewording to “the resolution of structure at atomic level resolution, their mechanism of intervention in the desired pathology…”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for the detailed review which helps improve the manuscript.
In addition to the highlighted revised sections, I address your points below:
Overall, the commentary highlights important aspects of the biological application of carbon quantum dots and what will be required for these efforts to be effective and reach the clinic. The document is clearly written, and some corrections are required :
Thank you very much.
Line 39:The statement that carbon quantum dots “are effective in cancer mitigation” should be supported by an appropriate reference.
This is now referenced
Line 43: Suggest rewording to “interact directly with mature fibrils and triggered their disaggregation,…”
Reworded
Line 46: Appropriate references should be included supporting that carbon quantum dots can cross the blood brain barrier.
We have added two more references and a total of 5 references have been cited regarding the BBB penetration
Lines 67-72: This paragraph needs to be indented and the font changed to match the rest of the document.
Done
Lines 74-78: The figure legend needs to be expanded to include detailed descriptions for panels B and C.
Figure legend and the scheme legend have been expanded
Lines 79-81: This paragraph needs to be expanded to discuss how the quantum dots from tetrahydrocannabinol were prepared and studied, and the significance of the results. Including a reference would be helpful if these results are from a previous publication by the authors.
As stated in the figure legend of the initial submission, the cQD from THC has been generated in silico. The experiment has not been done in practice. Even if it were done, the identity of the CQD would need to be unequivocally established. In fact, this is exactly what this perspective calls for. In the interim, we have generated a computational cQD as is often done and docked it to the receptor. This is now explained even more clearly in the revised version. A reference (#8) has been added as suggested.
Line 84: Reference should be superscript (“amyloid protein.2”)
When we checked, it was already superscripted
Line 85: The term “pristine GQD’s” should be defined.
Thank you. Its now done.
Lines 106-107: “in vitro” and “in vivo” need to be italicized.
it was found already italicized
Lines 114-115: Suggest rewording to “the resolution of structure at atomic level resolution, their mechanism of intervention in the desired pathology…”
Done.
Thank you gain for the very useful comments
