Advanced Nanoparticles in Combating Antibiotic Resistance: Current Innovations and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is a nice overview of antibiotic nanoparticles.  The following suggestions would improve the article:

1. The introduction is insufficient for a review article.  There are many approaches OTHER than nanoparticles that are being used to combat infection and resistance.  Thin film coatings, peptides, small molecules, biomimetic polymers, etc are all active and viable areas of research attacking the problem of antibiotic resistance.  The authors should include one paragraph outlining the alternative approaches in the field.  
2. Figure 1 is not attractive to the readers.  I would suggest eliminating the green boxes and moving that text to the main body or otherwise removing if it is duplicative.  It is strikingly different from the well crafted figures 2-4, so i strongly suggest a re-vamp of figure 1.  The CONTENT is fine but the presentation is not attractive, and being the first figure, may discourage readership.
3. Section 2.1 should be expanded.  (A) there are many metal-technologies that are used as antimicrobials.  if not in the introduction, thin film coatings should be discussed.  (B) The authors should reference appropriate articles when discussing the mechanism of action of each metal species, and notably the mechanism is not discussed for Au or Zn, (C) the authors should consistently review the different mechanisms of metal nanoparticles including ion release or physical disruption or otherwise for each metal species. 
4. In section 2.2, the authors should discuss the differences between SLN and NLC compared to traditional micelle structures.  SImilarly, if there are specific ratios or types of lipids necessary for the formation of SLN and NLC, this should be included.
5. There are many types of antimicrobial polymers.   Many of these are antimicrobial as soluble polymers rather than nanoparticles.  Either in 2.3 or in the introduction the authors should have some comparison of antimicrobial polymers directly vs. those in nanoparticles.
6. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 need significantly more references.  These sections rely heavily on referencing another review article (reference 117).
7. Section 8.3 is a very nice overview of developing technologies, but is missing a section of peptide-functionalized nanoparticles.
8. Lines 672-673, bacterial names are not italicized
9. Line 814, "Metal" should not be capitalized

 

 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your insightful feedback and thoughtful suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made the necessary revisions to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review paper is well-structured and effectively highlights the significance of antibiotic resistance and the potential of nanotechnology in addressing this crisis. Here are a few refinements to enhance clarity and impact:

1. Introduction: Rewrite with a recent compelling statistic or example to immediately emphasize the urgency of antibiotic resistance. Globally, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) stands as a critical health crisis, with estimates indicating that over 1.2 million direct fatalities were attributed to AMR in 2019. This are old data. Please share update 2024 at least. According to WHO and CDC, antibiotic-resistant infections cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. If current trends continue, this number could exceed ten million annually by 2050[2, 3]. Discuss that data with this sentence.
2. Line 71,72: Additionally, nanoparticles can act as 71 drug carriers to improve the targeted delivery of antibiotics, allowing them to penetrate 72 bacterial biofilms and reach infection sites more effectively [19]. Please expand and elaborate this section with recent research work in this field like, https://doi.org/10.2174/0109298673314366240712105637, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmcr.2023.100120
3. Line 77-78: Their physical interactions with bacterial membranes or release of toxic ions (e.g., silver ions) can disrupt bacterial cells without relying on traditional biochemical pathways [20-22]. Add how it work?
4. Serious improvement required for Figure 1. Different types of antimicrobial nanoparticles. Present look is like table, not at all illustration.
5. Review lacks the tabular data, please summarized the recent researc work in tabular form.
6. Add patented products too.
7. Discuss or summarized proven clinical trial or under progress.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your insightful feedback and thoughtful suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made the necessary revisions to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Advanced c: Current Innovations and Future Directions" which I have reviewed. I have the following comments:

1. Figure 1 should be improved, to be more interactive.
2. While describing different types of NPs authors could also add their limitations/shortcomings along with their positive properties. It would be great if authors could also add any examples (along with that) currently used in medical care. 
3. A comparative table for different types of nanoparticles will be great for understanding the main differences between these NPs. 
4.  Since the topic is Advanced Nanoparticles in Combating Antibiotic Resistance, the authors should describe more about NP's target bacterial species in terms of MIC, and In-vivo potency. 
5. 2.4 Carbon-Based Nanoparticle should be Carbon-Based Nanoparticles. this section also needs to be discussed more here. 
6. Section Combining Nanoparticles with Phage Therapy should also cover nanoparticle-based lysin delivery system which includes lysin-loaded chitosan nanoparticles also. 

In general, the manuscript is well-written and covers the basics of nanoparticles in combating antibiotic resistance. 

Thank you. 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your insightful feedback and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made the necessary revisions to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Significant improvement.  no major concerns.  Well done.

 

The only point that stood out is regarding reference 11.  This is a HUGE list of names, and i'm unsure of the journal's policy on such references.  This is not a concern for the authors, but for the editor.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revisions. It can be accepted now.