Solid-Binding Peptide for Enhancing Biocompatibility of Metallic Biomaterials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors summarized recent advances on solid-binding peptides for enhancing biocompatibility of metallic biomaterials. They described large amount of examples and gave effective comments. Despite the effort they made, few questions remained unsolved. Therefore, major revision is recommended.
1. The content and caption of Figure 1 is somehow simple. The indication of arrows between metal substrate and application of the peptides should be explained.
2. The authors claimed that SBP were used to improve the biocompatibility of metallic biomaterials. But some metal, such as Ti, exhibition well biocompatibility. How to explain the inconsistence? Furthermore, quantitatively analysis, i.e. the improvement of cell viability, should be introduced in this manuscript since the SBP did enhanced the biocompatibility.
3. Despite the comments and prospects in section 3.5 and section 4, the comments should be also added after the description in each section of metallic biomaterials (section 3.1 to 3.4).
4. Section 4 seemed to be lack of logic. I could not find the connection among the three subtitles.
5. Only two figures were performed in this review, which make the manuscript less of attraction.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have addressed your comments as follows:
Comment 1: The content and caption of Figure 1 is somehow simple. The indication of arrows between metal substrate and application of the peptides should be explained.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have significantly improved Figure 1 and its caption to better illustrate the functions and effects of SBPs. The meaning of the arrows has been clearly explained, providing a more comprehensive visualization of the SBP application process.
Comment 2: The authors claimed that SBP were used to improve the biocompatibility of metallic biomaterials. But some metal, such as Ti, exhibition well biocompatibility. How to explain the inconsistence? Furthermore, quantitatively analysis, i.e. the improvement of cell viability, should be introduced in this manuscript since the SBP did enhanced the biocompatibility.
Response 2: Thank you for your pointing out. I have added a detailed explanation in Section 3.1 addressing why SBPs are used for materials with good biocompatibility, such as Ti. Additionally, I have included quantitative data demonstrating the improvement in biocompatibility achieved through SBP application, citing the study by Gabriel et al.
Comment 3: Despite the comments and prospects in section 3.5 and section 4, the comments should be also added after the description in each section of metallic biomaterials (section 3.1 to 3.4).
Response 3: Thank you for your constructive feedback. I have incorporated specific comments and future challenges at the end of each metallic biomaterials section (3.1 to 3.4), providing a more comprehensive discussion of each material.
Comment 4: Section 4 seemed to be lack of logic. I could not find the connection among the three subtitles.
Response 4: I appreciate your suggestion. I have improved the logical structure of Section 4 and clarified the relationships between the three subsections, ensuring a more coherent flow of ideas.
Comment 5: Only two figures were performed in this review, which make the manuscript less of attraction.
Response: Thank you for your pointing. I have added Figure 3 to visually support the discussion on computational approaches for SBP design and optimization, enhancing the overall appeal and comprehensibility of the review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review article is very interesting for its content on metal binding peptide and peptide modified metallic biomaterials.
1. Please provide any examples of integration of phage display technology and theoretical calculations. (line 104)
2. It would be helpful to include binding constants and characteristics in the peptide sequences in Table1.
3. Author should indicate that advantage of SPB modification, compare with direct surface modification (ex; silane coupling).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable suggestions. Our responses are as follows:
Comment 1: Please provide any examples of integration of phage display technology and theoretical calculations. (line 104)
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the examples of integration of phage display technology and theoretical calculations in section 2.2, citing the studies by Stevens et al and Chen et al.
Comment 2: It would be helpful to include binding constants and characteristics in the peptide sequences in Table1.
Response 2: I appreciate your valuable suggestion. I cannot provide the binding constants in Table 1 because many publications do not record the data of binding constants. I assumed that it is difficult to determine the binding constants of metallic materials, therefore, I have added these reasons and future challenges.
Comment 3: Author should indicate that advantage of SPB modification, compare with direct surface modification (ex; silane coupling).
Response 3: Thank you for your pointing out. I have added the advantages the immobilization of SBPs in section 3.5, and compared with other directly surface modification methods.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper provides a concise and engaging overview of surface binding peptides (SBP) strategies, with a particular emphasis on their applications to metal surfaces. The scientific content is sound, though the introduction could benefit from a more thorough explanation of the fundamental principles of SBPs for readers less familiar with the field.
My primary recommendation is to expand the section on computational approaches to SBP. This section currently feels underdeveloped given the attention it receives in the abstract, and a more in-depth discussion would help differentiate this review from others in the field, particularly the recently published review in Materials Today Bio (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100580). Consider adding a dedicated subheading for computational methods and incorporating relevant examples, such as the work presented in "https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01286" (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01286).
Author Response
Comment:
This review paper provides a concise and engaging overview of surface binding peptides (SBP) strategies, with a particular emphasis on their applications to metal surfaces. The scientific content is sound, though the introduction could benefit from a more thorough explanation of the fundamental principles of SBPs for readers less familiar with the field. My primary recommendation is to expand the section on computational approaches to SBP. This section currently feels underdeveloped given the attention it receives in the abstract, and a more in-depth discussion would help differentiate this review from others in the field, particularly the recently published review in Materials Today Bio (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100580). Consider adding a dedicated subheading for computational methods and incorporating relevant examples, such as the work presented in "https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01286" (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01286).
Response: I appreciate your insightful comments on our review paper. I have addressed your suggestions as follow:
- I have added a dedicated subsection (2.2) titled “Computational Approaches for SBP Design and Optimization” to provide a discussion of this important topic. Within this expanded section, I have included detailed explanations of key computational methods, including machine learning and molecular dynamics simulations, and their applications in SBP research. I have incorporated relevant examples from recent literature, including the work by Qi and Pfaendtner that you suggested. This study demonstrates a high-throughput computational screening method for SBPs, which I have discussed in detail.
- I have also added Figure 3 to visually illustrate the integration of computational approaches in SBP design and optimization, enhancing the overall comprehension of this complex topic.
