Nanomedicine: Pioneering Advances in Neural Disease, Stroke and Spinal Cord Injury Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review comprehensively examines the advantages of multiple forms of engineered nanoparticles in targeted drug delivery for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes in several neural disorders.  The authors further discussed the challenges including toxicity, scalability, affordability, and regulatory barriers, along with potential strategies to address these issues.

The content is comprehensive and informative. The review is well written and organized.

 

There are some very minor things the authors may want to double check. Some of the numberings need to be corrected. For example, the “5.1” in line 938 and the numbering of the individual disorders under “6.2” need to be corrected.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments: Corrections in numbering

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The numbering inconsistencies, including the “5.1” in line 938 and the numbering under section “6.2,” have been carefully reviewed and corrected. The changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We are very grateful to the reviewer for the valuable suggestion 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted review describes examples of nanomedicine methods used for treating various central nervous system pathologies. The review can be recommended for acceptance after some revisions.

 

1. The authors present a structured abstract that includes a "Methods" paragraph; however, the manuscript itself lacks information about which databases were used, what search criteria were applied, and what were the exclusion criteria for sources.
2. Specify which software was used to create the illustrations.
3. I would recommend adding some tables in addition to the presented ones. For example, a summary table could be created for Chapter 2. The columns could be titled: #1 Name of pathology, #2 Type of nanoparticle, #3 Properties note, #4 Mechanism of action/biological effect, #5 Reference.
4. Provide explanations for undefined abbreviations (H102, EDIT101, etc.).

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Comments

Dear Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. Below are our responses to each of your comments, along with the revisions incorporated into the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Comments

Clarification of databases, search criteria, and exclusion criteria

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. A detailed Methodology section, including the databases searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar), the applied search criteria, and the exclusion criteria, has now been incorporated into the manuscript. These details have been highlighted to ensure clarity.

Specification of software used for illustrations

Response: The requested clarification has been provided in the manuscript. The illustrations were created using Adobe Photoshop 2021, Microsoft Office 365, and Adobe Lightroom Classic for image editing, graphical enhancements, and color adjustments. This information has been included and highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Addition of summary table in Chapter 2

Response: As per your suggestion, we have added Table 2, which summarizes the types of nanoparticles used for different neurological disorders. The table includes columns for Name of Pathology, Type of Nanoparticle, Properties, Mechanism of Action/Biological Effect, and References. The corresponding legend has also been included for clarity.

Explanation of undefined abbreviations

Response: Thank you for identifying this omission. Explanations for abbreviations such as H102, EDIT101, and others have been added within the manuscript and highlighted for ease of reference.

We are grateful for the constructive feedback provided by both reviewers. Your suggestions have significantly enhanced the comprehensiveness and readability of our work. Please let us know if any further refinements are needed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all my comments. Some icons/templates used in figures (neuron, astrocyte, dendrimer, micelle, polymer nanoparticle) were evidently taken from BioRender, but this resource was not cited in the text. If the authors indeed adopted these or another objects from BioRender, this information has to be indicated in the text. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2, Round 2:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to appropriately acknowledge the source of the icons/templates used in our figures. As advised, we have updated the manuscript to indicate that Figures 1 and 2 were created using icons/templates from BioRender (http://biorender.com/), with additional modifications performed using Adobe Photoshop (Version: 22.1.1) and Adobe Lightroom Classic (Version: 10.1.1), both licensed through Adobe Creative Cloud.

Furthermore, the graphical abstract has also been explicitly acknowledged as being created using BioRender icons/templates, with subsequent modifications made using the aforementioned software tools. These details have been clearly mentioned in the manuscript and highlighted in blue color to distinguish the earlier yellow highlighted revised sections for ease of reference.

A revised version of the manuscript has been submitted for your kind consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf