Monoclonal War: The Antibody Arsenal and Targets for Expanded Application
, Mickael Benhaim 2, Allison Siegel 2, David A. Stein 2, Joseph S. Leonard 2, Erik Katcher 2, Dania Halperin 2 and Zachary Mostel 3,†
Sofia Kossida
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review is comprehensive and well written. The authors have assembled a broad spectrum of references and interesting concepts. The result is a wide ranging article that will be of interest to those relatively new to the field. Certainly this could be published in its present form. However, I suggest that the article would benefit from focus...eliminating much of the background information and focusing on references that, as the authors note, were published in the past five years, and speak to clinical applications that have not yet been clinically realized, as is implied by the title.
Author Response
It was quite hard to strike a balance between writing with too broad a scope when the therapeutic has such a wide array of applications. We wanted to capture this multifunctional aspect. We also hoped to include some insights that more versed scholars would find novel and interesting, such as the use in addiction therapy which is a burgeoning application and not mentioned in many papers. I do agree however that the article is very surface-level regardless. As the article was also too short, in order to improve this we have mentioned additional applications and advances that are being made, relying on novel systems biology approaches and bleeding edge AI and computational pharmacology design techniques. We hope these additional insights illustrate the current state of mAB advances and add gravitas to the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Eric H. Rosenn and colleagues present a review entitled “Monoclonal War: The Antibody Arsenal and Targets for Expanded Application”. Their objective is to comprehensively review the origins, mechanisms, and applications of this significant category of drugs, while also delving into potential directions for future research.
General comment:
They present a text that is designed for straightforward reading and exhibits a clear structural organization. Nevertheless, they retain a predominantly general level of comprehension and use examples to elucidate their arguments, refraining from delving into intricate details. The nature of the review's content seems well-suited for integration into a book chapter, in my opinion.
Specific comments:
1. Lines 93-94 “Drugs from these stages are identified by the suffixes -zumAB, -ximAB, and -umAB, respectively.” This is the ‘old’ naming system. Currently, there is an updated version available at: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/international-nonproprietary-names-(inn)/new_mab_-nomenclature-_2021.pdf The authors should, at least, briefly mention it.
2. The authors mention a couple of mAbs, however they do not provide much information about them. They are encouraged to direct potential readers to IMGT/mAB-DB, https://www.imgt.org/mAb-DB/ , a comprehensive database in the field, available since 2010, to allow them to retrieve additional information.
3. Along with the previous comment, the authors are encouraged to read and cite the article: Manso T., Kushwaha A., Nguefack Ngoune V., Georga M., Abdollahi N., Duroux P., Giudicelli V., Kossida S.
Mechanisms of action of monoclonal antibodies in oncology integrated in IMGT/mAb-DB.
Front Immunol. 2023 May 05;14. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1129323.
Author Response
Thank you for your very specific comments. They were very clear in identifying a significant problem in the paper which we have rectified according to your suggestions.
As our paper was below the word count we have also added a few additional insights which we hope give the article more gravitas as a commentary on current advancements and future directions; in addition to building a contextual background.
