Nano-Biofungicides and Bio-Nanofungicides: State of the Art of Innovative Tools for Controlling Resistant Phytopathogens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is overall well written, but several points need to be improved before publication:

1. The distinction between “bio-nanofungicides” and “nano-biofungicides” is inconsistent and unclear, and terms are sometimes used interchangeably, leading to confusion. I think it needs a specific section for the used terminology.

2. The discussion of fungicide resistance lacks depth, like the key molecular mechanisms (efflux pumps, target site modification) that are not well covered.

3. Fungicide mechanism of action is summarized in a table but would benefit from more biochemical depth.

4. I`ve noticed a heavy reliance on citation stacking without critical analysis. Also, extensive citations, but many are listed without deep discussion.

5. Over-reliance on review articles instead of primary experimental studies, with some references not directly supporting the statements made. The paper needs more quantitative data to suopport some claims too.

6. Some complicated concepts would also benefit from graphical schematics in my opinion (mechanisms for example)...for a non-specialist but interested audience, figures are the key to hook the reader.

7. No comparisons between traditional fungicides and nano-based alternatives in real-world agricultural settings.

8. Discussion on soil interactions is too general and need more quantitative data, and some claims about soil microbiota benefits are weakly supported by a non-review article.

9. Regulatory aspects are briefly mentioned but lack details on safety assessment, toxicology, and agency-specific approval processes etc... Also, regulatory aspects appear as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the review, and I believe a huge part of the readers will be interested on that.

10. The historical context of nanotechnology is disconnected from the agricultural application discussion.

11. The paper needs to deeply evaluate, describe and discuss limitations of existing studies (e.g., toxicity, scalability, field application).

12. Lacks discussion on future research directions or potential experimental approaches (this can add a lot of significance to the paper).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1) Frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and formatting issues.

Like here for example:

 “The increasing global population and climate change are two of the major concerns of the actual world.”

“Fungicides Currently Used and Strategies to Combat Fungal Disease and Resistance” (awkward phrasing).

2) Typographical errors like “nanopartilces” instead of “nanoparticles”, so I recommend double check the entire paper.

3) Transitions between sections are kind of abrupt, leading to a disjointed narrative that can be improved with smoother transitions.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their comments. Below we provide our point-by-point responses.

 

R1

The work is overall well written, but several points need to be improved before publication:

1. The distinction between “bio-nanofungicides” and “nano-biofungicides” is inconsistent and unclear, and terms are sometimes used interchangeably, leading to confusion. I think it needs a specific section for the used terminology.

We appreciate the comment of the reviewer. The terms were clarified and a comparative table was added in order to summarize the main differences between bio-nanofungicides and nano-biofungicides

2. The discussion of fungicide resistance lacks depth, like the key molecular mechanisms (efflux pumps, target site modification) that are not well covered.

Thank you very much for the comment. As we mentioned in the manuscript (line 93-94), fungicide resistance mechanisms are well-documented in existing literature. For that reason, we did not address this discussion in the present review.

3. Fungicide mechanism of action is summarized in a table but would benefit from more biochemical depth.

As previously noted, resistance mechanisms are thoroughly discussed in the cited literature. Table 1 provides a brief overview for the reader.

4. I`ve noticed a heavy reliance on citation stacking without critical analysis. Also, extensive citations, but many are listed without deep discussion.

We have revised the citations and remove those that could have superficial discussion.

5. Over-reliance on review articles instead of primary experimental studies, with some references not directly supporting the statements made. The paper needs more quantitative data to suopport some claims too.

Thank you very much for this comment. In fact, it's very interesting, as we shared the same thoughts when writing the review. Published works in the area of ​​biological nanoparticle synthesis and related topics often contain very similar data. We felt this would lead to monotonous, lengthy, and uninteresting discussions. Therefore, we decided to write paragraphs (in the sections where appropriate) summarizing the concept being discussed and cite the review works that already address data analysis in some way. Nevertheless, we revised the work according to your suggestion.

6. Some complicated concepts would also benefit from graphical schematics in my opinion (mechanisms for example)...for a non-specialist but interested audience, figures are the key to hook the reader.

We added a figure for the initial steps of the mechanisms.

7. No comparisons between traditional fungicides and nano-based alternatives in real-world agricultural settings.

Thank you very much for the comment. A section that include a comparative table was added to the manuscript.

8. Discussion on soil interactions is too general and need more quantitative data, and some claims about soil microbiota benefits are weakly supported by a non-review article.

We appreciate the reviewer's  comments. We have clarified and expanded the discussion on soil interactions, incorporating additional quantitative data. Furthermore, we have supported the claims regarding the benefits to soil microbiota with more robust, peer-reviewed literature, addressing the weakness previously highlighted.

9. Regulatory aspects are briefly mentioned but lack details on safety assessment, toxicology, and agency-specific approval processes etc... Also, regulatory aspects appear as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the review, and I believe a huge part of the readers will be interested on that.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We have now expanded the manuscript by including detailed information on global legislation, regulatory frameworks, safety assessments, toxicological considerations, and specific agency approval processes related to the use of nanoparticles.

10. The historical context of nanotechnology is disconnected from the agricultural application discussion.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the historical context. To address this concern, we have removed the fragments related to the historical background of nanotechnology that were disconnected and potentially confusing.

11. The paper needs to deeply evaluate, describe and discuss limitations of existing studies (e.g., toxicity, scalability, field application).
12. Lacks discussion on future research directions or potential experimental approaches (this can add a lot of significance to the paper).

We thank the reviewer for this observation. Both points—the evaluation, description, and discussion of limitations in existing studies (including toxicity, scalability, and field application), as well as the identification of future research directions and potential experimental approaches—have been thoroughly discussed and integrated throughout the entire review manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1) Frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and formatting issues.

Like here for example:

 “The increasing global population and climate change are two of the major concerns of the actual world.”

“Fungicides Currently Used and Strategies to Combat Fungal Disease and Resistance” (awkward phrasing).

2) Typographical errors like “nanopartilces” instead of “nanoparticles”, so I recommend double check the entire paper.

3) Transitions between sections are kind of abrupt, leading to a disjointed narrative that can be improved with smoother transitions.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. Additionally, we would like to inform the reviewer that the manuscript's English language has been carefully revised and corrected by a native English speaker.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review provides a comprehensive analysis of bio-nanofungicides and nano-biofungicides, emphasizing their potential to enhance antifungal efficacy, reduce environmental impact, and mitigate resistance development in fungal pathogens. It provides a clear distinction between these two emerging technologies, highlighting their different mechanisms of action, environmental impacts, and potential advantages over conventional chemical fungicides.The paper presents an innovative differentiation between nano-biofungicides and bio-nanofungicides, providing clarity on their unique characteristics, mechanisms, and environmental impacts. The topic is of high scientific relevance due to its integration of nanotechnology and biocompatible agents, and the review is well-structured with adequate citations, ensuring technical accuracy and depth in the discussion.

The paper includes extensive citations from recent studies (2020-2024), indicating that the authors have engaged with the latest scientific advancements. It explores bio-coronas in bio-nanofungicides, an underexplored topic, making it a novel contribution to agricultural nanotechnology.

The citations appear to be valid and relevant, covering a wide range of sources from peer-reviewed journals. However, there are inconsistencies in formatting as some references list full author names, while others use initials (should follow a single referencing style). The citation order is inconsistent in some sections (some follow year-order, others don’t). Some statements require additional citations to support claims, particularly in the discussion section.

The english can be improbed, as  the text contains grammatical errors, wordiness, and awkward sentence structures that make it difficult to read.

The discussion follows a logical flow, comparing nano-biofungicides and bio-nanofungicides effectively.  But I miss a deeper Analysis with potential drawbacks or limitations of these technologies (e.g., cost, regulatory barriers, long-term environmental effects). There is no comparison with conventional fungicides (e.g., efficiency rates, toxicity levels) with traditional chemical fungicides would strengthen the discussion. The conclusion does not sufficiently elaborate on future research beyond broad recommendations. A dissertation should include specific gaps in the research and potential experimental approaches to address them.

Author Response

 

We thank the reviewers for their comments. Below we provide our point-by-point responses.

 

R2

The review provides a comprehensive analysis of bio-nanofungicides and nano-biofungicides, emphasizing their potential to enhance antifungal efficacy, reduce environmental impact, and mitigate resistance development in fungal pathogens. It provides a clear distinction between these two emerging technologies, highlighting their different mechanisms of action, environmental impacts, and potential advantages over conventional chemical fungicides.The paper presents an innovative differentiation between nano-biofungicides and bio-nanofungicides, providing clarity on their unique characteristics, mechanisms, and environmental impacts. The topic is of high scientific relevance due to its integration of nanotechnology and biocompatible agents, and the review is well-structured with adequate citations, ensuring technical accuracy and depth in the discussion.

The paper includes extensive citations from recent studies (2020-2024), indicating that the authors have engaged with the latest scientific advancements. It explores bio-coronas in bio-nanofungicides, an underexplored topic, making it a novel contribution to agricultural nanotechnology.

The citations appear to be valid and relevant, covering a wide range of sources from peer-reviewed journals.

 However, there are inconsistencies in formatting as some references list full author names, while others use initials (should follow a single referencing style). The citation order is inconsistent in some sections (some follow year-order, others don’t). Some statements require additional citations to support claims, particularly in the discussion section.

We sincerely thank for highlighting these issues. We have corrected the inconsistencies in reference formatting, ensuring all citations adhere to a single, consistent referencing style, and citations are now uniformly ordered. Additionally, we have included further citations to clearly support statements within the discussion section, enhancing the clarity and robustness of the manuscript.

The english can be improbed, as  the text contains grammatical errors, wordiness, and awkward sentence structures that make it difficult to read.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their comments Ww would like to inform the reviewer that the manuscript's English language has been revised and corrected by a native English speaker.

 

The discussion follows a logical flow, comparing nano-biofungicides and bio-nanofungicides effectively.  But I miss a deeper Analysis with potential drawbacks or limitations of these technologies (e.g., cost, regulatory barriers, long-term environmental effects). There is no comparison with conventional fungicides (e.g., efficiency rates, toxicity levels) with traditional chemical fungicides would strengthen the discussion. The conclusion does not sufficiently elaborate on future research beyond broad recommendations. A dissertation should include specific gaps in the research and potential experimental approaches to address them.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable suggestions. We have expanded our discussion and carefully analyzed each point raised, including regulatory barriers, and long-term environmental effects. We have also incorporated a detailed comparison between nano-based and conventional chemical fungicides, addressing efficiency rates and toxicity levels. Additionally, the conclusion was improved.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Nano-Biofungicides and Bio-Nanofungicides: State of the Art of Innovative Tools for Controlling Resistant Phytopathogens" for the Biophysica journal by MDPI. However, upon a thorough literature search, I discovered this manuscript had already been published on Preprint.org on February 28, 2025.

The document published on Preprint.org has an assigned DOI and evidence of downloads and views. Although a statement indicating that it is a version without peer review is included, the manuscript's public and complete availability raises serious ethical concerns regarding its review and potential publication in Biophysica.

Submitting a work that is already openly available to the public for review lacks validity and could compromise the integrity of the peer-review process. So, it is not appropriate to continue reviewing this manuscript.

I have added the link to the document published on Preprint.org for your reference: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202502.2287/v1

I appreciate your understanding and will be available to answer any more questions.

Best.

Author Response

 

We thank the reviewers for their comments. Below we provide our point-by-point responses.

 

R3

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Nano-Biofungicides and Bio-Nanofungicides: State of the Art of Innovative Tools for Controlling Resistant Phytopathogens" for the Biophysica journal by MDPI. However, upon a thorough literature search, I discovered this manuscript had already been published on Preprint.org on February 28, 2025.

The document published on Preprint.org has an assigned DOI and evidence of downloads and views. Although a statement indicating that it is a version without peer review is included, the manuscript's public and complete availability raises serious ethical concerns regarding its review and potential publication in Biophysica.

Submitting a work that is already openly available to the public for review lacks validity and could compromise the integrity of the peer-review process. So, it is not appropriate to continue reviewing this manuscript.

I have added the link to the document published on Preprint.org for your reference: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202502.2287/v1

I appreciate your understanding and will be available to answer any more questions.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for bringing this important point to our attention. Based on your observation, we have consulted with the editor regarding the manuscript's availability on Preprints.org. We have been reassured that our submission fully complies with the ethical standards and guidelines established by MDPI and Biophysica. We greatly appreciate your thorough review and remain available for any further clarification or questions.