Nanotechnological Innovations in the Treatment and Diagnosis of Viral Pathogens: Biomedical and Macromolecular Insights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Nanotechnological Innovations in the Treatment and Diagnosis of Viral Pathogens: Biomedical and Macromolecular Insights” by M. Chávez-Tinoco et al. reviews the current status of viral infection treatments by using modern nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based approaches. The paper contains introduction to virus definition and their evaluation, different viral infections, impact of viruses on environments, viral mechanisms of evasion and biochemical composition of viruses. In the second part of the manuscript, authors describe different nanomaterials to fight against viruses along with technological advances in detecting viral diseases. This research filed is very important to address current challenges for diagnostic and treatment of viral infections, and would be interesting for the reader of the journal. However, after reading the paper there are points that have to be addressed.

1. The manuscript lacks a section on theranostics (a combination of diagnostic and therapy) of viral infections. The authors so far only provide an analysis of treatment and diagnostic methods using nanomaterials separately. This research direction would be of interest for readers.
2. Although authors gave conclusion of their literature review, it would be very important provide more information about comparative analysis of using nanomaterial both for the treatment and diagnosis of viruses. Furthermore, it would be very important provide future defections of this research field, especially of using nanomaterials for the treatment of viruses in vivo in comparison with vaccines.

Author Response

Comment 1. The manuscript lacks a section on theranostics (a combination of diagnostic and therapy) of viral infections. The authors so far only provide an analysis of treatment and diagnostic methods using nanomaterials separately. This research direction would be of interest for readers.

Even if that can be a great idea and perspective, that is not the main objective of the research and implies more work for documentation, that can be achieved in posterior work. Together with this, we have decided to maintain the treatment and discussion sections separated since the evidence about the evaluation of both features in one project is limited

Comment 2. Although authors gave conclusion of their literature review, it would be very important provide more information about comparative analysis of using nanomaterial both for the treatment and diagnosis of viruses. Furthermore, it would be very important provide future defections of this research field, especially of using nanomaterials for the treatment of viruses in vivo in comparison with vaccines.

The conclusion was improved and the perspective for the future directions of this research field was added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review seems interesting but cannot be accepted in this format. This manuscript requires revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1.For the references, the literature format needs to be unified according to the requirements of the journal.

2.The review on Nanotechnology in Section 6 is not sufficiently comprehensive. It is recommended to further elaborate on the discussion and summarize the relevant technological advancements in a table.

3.Table 2 and Table 3 should include the corresponding reference numbers。

4.The conclusion is currently too brief and superficial. It should give the key findings from the treatment and diagnosis sections, highlighting the most promising material classes and strategies. And clearly outline the current major challenges hindering clinical translation, provide a forward-looking perspective on future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comment 1.For the references, the literature format needs to be unified according to the requirements of the journal.

We already have improved the references list and have been adapted to the journal guidelines.

Comment 2.The review on Nanotechnology in Section 6 is not sufficiently comprehensive. It is recommended to further elaborate on the discussion and summarize the relevant technological advancements in a table.

After a comprehensive read, we improved our writing, and the section was enriched with a more punctual discussion.  

Comment 3.Table 2 and Table 3 should include the corresponding reference numbers

Both tables were corrected and references included.

Comment 4.The conclusion is currently too brief and superficial. It should give the key findings from the treatment and diagnosis sections, highlighting the most promising material classes and strategies. And clear translation, the current major challenges hindering clinical translation, provide a forward-looking perspective on future research directions.

Conclusion was improved and the take home lessons were added, just like was required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, authors examined the latest nanotechnological innovations designed to combat viral diseases. Like the development of advanced nanoplatforms, metallic and polymeric nanostructures and carbon-based materials and evaluating their roles in viral theranostics. This work aimed to provide a valuable resource for guiding future research toward the clinical translation of nanomaterial-based strategies for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of viral infections. However, I have a few concerns regarding this manuscript and therefore I recommend minor revisions of this manuscript before it can be considered for publication in the JNT.

I have the following concerns:

1: The description of the virus is a bit lengthy. It should directly focus on the causes of the virus's pathogenicity and its hazards, highlighting these aspects. Moreover, it needs to be closely linked to the treatment targets in the subsequent section on nanotechnology. This part requires some revision.

2: Some of the English descriptions in the text need to be optimized as they are sometimes ambiguous.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the English descriptions in the text need to be optimized as they are sometimes ambiguous.

Author Response

Comment 1: The description of the virus is a bit lengthy. It should directly focus on the causes of the virus's pathogenicity and its hazards, highlighting these aspects. Moreover, it needs to be closely linked to the treatment targets in the subsequent section on nanotechnology. This part requires some revision.

The revision was made, and the evolutionary section of the review was improved. It is important to make a point that evolutionary patterns of viruses are essential to understanding the complexity of this life form, the section was synthetized and linked to the treatment strategies just as was proposed.

Comment 2: Some of the English descriptions in the text need to be optimized as they are sometimes ambiguous.

Revision was made and the descriptions were improved as well as the English redaction.  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments.