Advancements in Microfluidic Platforms for Glioblastoma Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGlioblastoma is a very severe malignant tumor, and research on its pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment methods is of great significance. Microfluidic technology has important application value in glioblastoma research through 2D and 3D culturing, organoid technology, cell-drug interaction, and convenience in detection. This paper provides a comprehensive review of relevant research progress, with sufficient content, but there are still some points required for improvement:
1. The paper provides extensive introductions to some basic properties and research background of glioblastoma, but lacks sufficient content related to microfluidics. Moreover, there is little integration of different characteristics with microfluidic technology, causing a disconnection between the two parts of the content.
2. The paper lacks elaboration on how to design microfluidic devices specifically for basic research and detection analysis methods targeting certain characteristics of glioblastoma.
3. In the specific application examples, there is basically no microfluidic structural design scheme, especially graphical illustrations.
4. Other minor errors exist, such as redundant text on lines 124-125.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for assessing our manuscript. We addressed all the comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRaman et al. provide a review on the state of using microfluidic methods for the research, diagnosis/prognosis, and therapy of Glioblastoma (GBM). Overall, the review is well organized, and easy to follow. It offers a quick summary one the current state of microfluidic devices in GBM applications. I recommend the publication of this work after addressing the following minor issues.
1. Table 1 is very comprehensive and provides valuable information. However, it lacks the technological description of each method. I suggest adding one additional column to describe the specific microfluidic technology used.
2. For the future perspectives, it would be valuable to point out current technology limitations of microfluidics and the direction of future technology advancements for GBM applications.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for assessing our manuscript. We addressed all the comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review by Raman et al. is well-written and addresses a highly relevant and pressing topic in glioblastoma (GBM) research. The authors provide a comprehensive overview of the role of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in GBM progression, highlighting how traditional models fall short in replicating the complexity of the TME. The review skillfully covers all major and recent publications, making it a valuable resource for researchers in the field.
One area that could enhance the review is the inclusion of a discussion on the need for new microfluidic platforms to investigate the role of membrane conductances involved in GBM migration within the extracellular matrix (ECM). Specifically, recent studies have identified the importance of sodium-calcium exchangers (NCX) (Hu et al., 2019; Brandalise et al., 2023) and sodium-hydrogen exchangers (NHE) (Zhang et al., 2022) in this process. By integrating such considerations, the review could further emphasize how the proposed models might unveil novel pharmacological targets among membrane conductances, offering more effective treatment options for GBM.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for assessing our manuscript. We addressed all the comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript basically meets the requirements for publication in the journal.
