An Updated Review of the Antimicrobial Potential of Selenium Nanoparticles and Selenium-Related Toxicological Issues
, Alan Kelbis Oliveira Lima 2 and LuÃs Alexandre Muehlmann 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issues raised by the authors in the review are important and interesting due to the growing number of drug-resistant microorganisms pathogenic, including those affecting humans. However, the information provided in the work needs to be supplemented, because most of the authors provide very laconic information that can be used for a very general/down-to-date understanding of the topic. In its current form, it can serve as a draft that should be supplemented with more detailed information. When reading the work, one may get the impression that the authors selected key sentences/words from other works, without delving into their content and without trying to explain/deepen the issues raised. The work requires reflection and completion.
Below are suggestions and comments for authors:
The work is a review article, therefore 2. Materials and methods should be deleted. It does not contribute anything to the work, and it is known that writing a review article involves searching various databases.
For the most part, the authors limit themselves only to mentioning, for example: properties (lines 41-440, NPs/SeNPs characteristics (lines 56-58; 61-64; 93-95), etc. Some of them, especially those relevant to the main problem of the work, should be developed, e.g. what is the antibacterial role of the organic form of selenium how it can modulate the immune function, what is the significance (what does it involve), what is the toxic effect of selenium or SeNPs etc.?
Both the title and the summary do not fully reflect the content of the work itself. Because the content is much poorer than the title and summary suggest. The authors should rethink the content of the work and definitely strengthen it with much more details.
Detailed comments;
if in the introduction the authors mention the functions of organic and inorganic selenium (lines 40-48), it should be explained what these forms are and what their function is. What forms/types of selenium are responsible for DNA damage and what it involves, what cytotoxicity is associated with and what cells/organisms it affects.
What is the therapeutic and theranostic potential? The functions described in lines 61-64 need to be explained. Similarly, it should be explained and given examples what the capture of toxic forms of selenium involves and by what microorganisms?
What influences the formation of SeNPs with different morphologies. What can they be used for? How are SeNPs nanospheres obtained? Why is this type more important/advantageous over others in pharmacology and biological functionality etc.
Due to the commercial potential and wide range of applications of nanoparticles, it is necessary to present the aspect related to methods ensuring high efficiency and quality of obtaining NPs, lines 101-107. What are the differences between the obtained particles and do they have any biological or antimicrobial effects? What is their toxicity to cells in vitro and in vivo?
The selected methods should be briefly discussed beyond just listing them in Fig. 2. You can focus on the most popular ones and those that may have pharmacological potential. Can SeNPs, apart from having a direct antimicrobial effect (what are some examples), also be used as carriers of other drugs, for example? Are they toxic? This also applies to the remaining subchapters.
It should be explained what reagents can be precursors in biological synthesis and what is their importance?
Latin names of microorganisms and plants are always written in italics. For the first time in the text we write the full two-part name (e.g. Escherichia coli), next time we write the first part with the first letter and the second part in its entirety (E. coli). The full name and the abbreviated name in brackets should not be placed in one place in the text, it is inappropriate.
What do the brackets next to the reducing agents mean, lines 130-134?
If biological synthesis/green synthesis is important for the work, should the chapter be expanded? Which species and which methods are the most promising? What conditions are the most optimal?
Once you have explained what MIC stands for, only the abbreviation MIC may be used in the following text.
Please carefully check the species of organisms and what groups they belong to. Because there are cardinal errors,Table 1 Spirulina is not a bacteria but an alga, lines 318-319 S. abony, E. coli, K. pneumoniae are not Gram-positive bacteria but Gram-negative bacteria. Table 3 Lactobacillus and Bacillus are not plants
line 251, specify what bacterium was used?
All tables should explain the abbreviations used, e.g. DLS, TEM, FESEM, XRD, etc.
If the MIC for given molecules is provided everywhere, you can provide the MIC instead of the SeNPs parameters in the table header. Because what do the parameters mean? What is it about? If the table shows survival, e.g. Table 1 for C. albicans, the dose should also be given.
If MIC is given in microg/ml in Table 3, it should be standardized and mg/ml replaced by microg/ml.
The referensys table should be given numbers as in the entire work. It is difficult to find citations because the literature is arranged in the order in which it appears in the text, not alphabetically.
Line 392 – is "The antibacterial effect on wounds has also been evaluated by [75]." you should provide the authors' surname before the item and then provide the reference number .
Please match your conclusions to the content of your work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review is a comprehensive and compact summary of the antibacterial and antifungal activities of selenium nanoparticles synthesized using biological, chemical, and physical methods. This review is beneficial for gaining an overview of this field. Please consider the following points:
1) The title mentions "Toxicological issues," but this is only briefly mentioned in the Introduction of this review. It would be easier for readers to understand if the title was changed to a review of antimicrobial activity.
2) The issue of drug-resistant bacteria is a significant public health issue for the future. It is commendable that the paper includes articles showing the effects of SeNPs on multidrug-resistant bacteria and articles showing the combined effects of SeNPs and antibiotics. It would be better to emphasize more that the amount of antibiotics used can be reduced by combining them with SeNPs.
3) Are any bacteria resistant to Se and SeNPs themselves? Some microorganisms are resistant to Se, so this area should also be mentioned.
4) Considering the purpose of this review, the authors should describe the antibacterial mechanism of Se and SeNPs in more detail.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors demonstrated here an update on the production and characteristics of Selenium nanoparticles, through the discussion of various methods in producing these nanoparticles, the authors talked about the antifungal and antibacterial properties of the obtained nanoparticles. However, as a review, the authors failed to provide a detailed explanation and demonstration of many aspects of selenium nanoparticles, 3 methods for preparation were briefly talked, antifungal and antibacterial properties of some obtained nanoparticles were listed while other properties were not mentioned. There were no discussions of toxicity in the review even the titles says 'selenium related toxicological issues'. Thus, it's not suitable for publication in current form, the authors need to focus on one or some aspects of the nanoparticles to present readers a clear and understandable review. Following are some questions the authors may need to answer in the review:- Almost all the nanoparticle properties are dependent on the size of nanoparticles, structure of core, shell, and surface layer, and production methods, what are the impacts of size, structure, production methods on the properties of obtained nanoparticles.
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of various methods in preparing the nanoparticles
- What about the toxicity of the selenium nanoparticles? Have researchers studies the effects of various factors?
- Other than antifungal and antibacterial properties, are there any other notable benefits of selenium nanoparticles? Such as Antioxidant, antidiabetic, antiparasitic activities?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review titled “An updated review of the Antimicrobial Potential of Selenium Nanoparticles and Selenium-Related Toxicological Issues” summarizes the most recent articles of biologically and chemically synthesized selenium nanoparticles and their applications in the field of antimicrobials. Please note the following issues with the manuscript and provide a revised version.
There are some technical issues in writing this review and needs amendment before publication:
1. The Materials and Methods section is unnecessary. There is no need to mention the sources of a review as long as proper references are provided. The section can be summarized in the last paragraph of Introduction.
2. A general scheme of nanoparticle synthesis in the Figure1 is unnecessary. It should be selenium nanoparticle synthesis specific as the review is specific to only those kinds of nanoparticles. [The authors] in the figure 1 captions in not necessary.
3. The synthesis sections in the manuscript should be more focused on reviews from SeNP related publications. e.g- Ref 52 is not specific to SeNP.
4. It is not clear what are the () in the section 3.1 2nd paragraph means.
5. Line 267- “He-SeNPs inhibited approximately 72,01% of fungal growth” is wrong. ‘72,01’ should be 72.01%. This should be corrected.
6. There are many spelling mistakes in the manuscript e.g- in Line 283, spelling of ‘table’ is wrong. This should be thoroughly revised.
7. Section 4.3 should be re-written. Sentences should start with 'A study by .... et al showed....."
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThrorough check on spelling and grammar is necessary.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the manuscript, which strengthened it. However, I still have some minor suggestions:
1) e.g. lines 64, 222, 616 where subsequent literature items are quoted, they should be connected with a dash - it should be [25,26,27] it should be [25-27]. It should be checked throughout the work,
2) in tables 1 and 2 in the last lines the doses should be given in µg/ml and it is ug/ml - this should be corrected,
3) in table 4, in the last column of the last row, this percentage is 33-56%, and after time 44-69%. It should be added at what dose such survival occurs,
4) in scientific works, abbreviations of Latin names are not given in brackets next to the full names, as is the case in lines e.g. 328, 390-392, 445, 455 and so on. As a rule, if the name appears in the work for the first time, it is given in whole (e.g. Candida parapsilosis), and only when it reappears is the abbreviation of the first part of the name used (e.g. C. parapsilosis). However, both versions are not placed next to each other, as in the work, among others, Candida parapsilosis (C. parapsilosis). Please correct and leave one version,
5) is Na2SeO3 it should be Na2SeO3
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript here is a better demonstration of the topic in antimicrobial potential of SeNP, and the title is accurate in limiting the discussion of this review to this specific topic. This is suitable for publication as submitted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSection 2 and 3 of the review is lengthy and contain unnecessary details about Selenium which is not relevant to this review. These sections can be merged and made more succint.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find attached the file with our responses to all the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
