Nanozyme-Based Cancer Nanotheranostics: Emerging Applications and Challenges in Brain Cancer Therapeutics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is "hot" and interesting for a wide range of readers. The manuscript needs a lot of improvement.
Some comments:
- At checking part of the text for plagiarism, the system indicated 31.59%. Please correct it.
- Why rewrite textbooks, this is scientific article but not a textbook.
- There is a lot of information that does not correspond to the topic.
- Authors are advised to carefully read the article because it contains a lot of repetitions. For ex., text “Nanozymes and Nanozymology, bridging inorganic nanomaterials and biology, are relatively new domains, amalgamating numerous areas of knowledge, including biology…. “ – it is the same that was written before.
-Also – “Some traditional cancer treatments are based on the generation of prooxidant agents over a defined threshold to induce cell death” – it is the same that was written before.
- Section 2 and especially 2.2.1. Classification based on Chemical Catalysis and 2.2.1.1. Background on Enzymes – are superfluous and not related to the focus of the article.
- In Section 2.1. Background, Discovery, and Development: What are nanozymes? - It is better to give more the disadvantages of nanozymes in the text (not only in Table).
- Section 2.2.1.2. Nanozymes Catalytic Reactions - is not need.
- Section 3 - can be significantly reduced.
-Should include more discussion on the difficulties and priorities of the current research field, as well as the practical applications that have been and will be realized in this field.
-It is better to summarize each of the nanozymes for brain cancer therapeutics.
-The review should be more on compilation of discussion and figures.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the review article titled “Nanozyme-Based Cancer Nanotheranostics: Emerging Applications and Challenges Towards Brain Cancer Therapeutics,” the authors have conducted extensive work to summarize the use of nanozymes in cancer diagnosis and therapy. However, several recommendations are provided to maximize the impact of this comprehensive work.
1. The primary aim of the review article is to discuss the use of various nanozymes for glioblastoma (GBM) diagnostics and therapeutics. However, the detailed explanations and literature related to nanozymes, spanning approximately 10 pages, may detract from the main topic. Instead, the authors could offer a concise summary of these nanozymes and recent review articles that include detailed explanations. This approach would allow readers interested in the topic to avoid lengthy and excessive content.
2. Sections 3, “Nanozyme Meets Cancer Theragnostics,” and 4, “Smart Nanozyme-Based Cancer Therapy – Targeted Nanotheranostic Applications,” can be summarized together. While the authors aim to highlight the characteristics of cancer cells that could serve as biomarkers for identifying these cancers, it is important to maintain a focus on GBM. This focus would strengthen the connection between the review's topic and its context. As such, the authors should eliminate any unrelated content that strays from the topic of GBM. In the current context, there is a large amount of context that is not directly related to GBM but to general cancer in section 4.
3. On pages 21 and 22, the authors reference existing reviews on nanozymes and cancer therapy. It is crucial to articulate the significance and importance of this particular review compared to previous literature. Providing a reasonable answer to this question will add novelty to the work.
4. Throughout the text, there is noticeable repetition. For instance, Table 1 outlines the advantages of nanozymes over enzymes, along with their limitations and challenges. However, the advantages of nanozymes are reiterated in multiple sections. The authors should refer to Table 1 instead of repeating this information elsewhere. Similar issues of redundancy exist throughout different sections, necessitating a thorough review of the content to minimize repetition.
5. Formatting issues are also observed in multiple locations. Therefore, authors must carefully review the content to avoid similar problems.
a. References are missing in the appropriate places. For example on page 15, it was reported that “As several metals present different oxidation states, multi-enzyme behavior could be observed in some compounds, and enzyme-like activity could be dependent on pH”. However, the relevant references for this statement are not provided. Another example is “The doping of carbon nanozymes with heteroatoms (one or more types) and the development of nanocomposites involving carbon nanostructures amalgamated with TMN and noble metal nanozymes have also been investigated as multicomponent nanosystems to improve or expand the catalytic ability of carbon nanozymes”.
b. Inconsistencies in font are evident—for example, on page 36, lines 1168, 1169, 1173, and 1174. The spacing between paragraphs is also inconsistent on pages 15 and 16.
c. Despite the use of acronyms in the manuscript, the full terms are often mentioned alongside their acronyms in multiple locations, such as peroxidase (POD), hemodynamic therapy (CDT), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), catalase (CAT), and glioblastoma (GBM). This lack of consistency throughout the review detracts from its overall quality.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have made good improvements to the manuscript, which can be accepted for publication.
