All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for a well-performed revision of the manuscript.
Thanks
Best regards
Ferdinand Frauscher
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Pedro Silva, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all the concerns, improving the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication
The authors have addressed all the concerns, improving the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication
The authors have addressed all the concerns, improving the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication
The authors have addressed all the concerns, improving the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication
Dear Dr. Zhou,
Please change the paper according to the reviewers' comments.
thanks
best regards
Ferdinand
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The authors developed Biotin-streptavidin-guided two-step pretargeting approach using PLGA for molecular ultrasound imaging and chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. The major concern needs to be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication. Followings are recommended for the manuscript.
What is the novelty of work?
Purpose of study in the abstract is not clear. Therefore, the author needs to a breakdown in two sentences and make it clear.
The objective of the study should be incorporated at the end of the introduction.
If authors have used reported HPLC method for drug analysis then it should be incorporated in the manuscript such as the composition of mobile phase and instrument specification.
The vocabularies, grammar and minor writing style in the manuscript must be revised and improved
Please indicate both the manufacturer’s name and location (including city, state, and country) for all specialized equipment, kits, software, incubators, instruments, and reagents used in the experiment wherever required.
Authors should provide the process parameters, e.g. how much volume of the organic phase, temperature, stirring speed, the power capacity of sonicator and so on.
How is the stability of formulations physiological condition? How is the biosafety of formulations?
Authors did not show any experiments in which they used blank nanoparticles. Nanoparticles itself could induce an unwanted cytotoxic effect on cells. MTT assay should be performed also with blank nanoparticles.
The author needs to justify why the cytotoxic effects of formulations on at least one normal cell line were not assessed.
No comment
Discussion of the results especially formulations is laconic, the author needs to improve the discussion with compare to previous literature.
The quality of the Figures is poor. Please provide high resolution (300 dpi) images.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article is entitled " Biotin-streptavidin-guided two-step pretargeting approach using PLGA for molecular ultrasound imaging and chemotherapy for ovarian cancer " by Zhou, et al. They report a pre-targeting strategy using streptavidin (SA) and paclitaxel (PTX)-loaded phase-shifting poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) nanoparticles with perfluoro-n-pentane (PTX-PLGA-SA/PFPs) on the treatment and ultrasound imaging of ovarian cancer. The concept of pre-targeting strategy using streptavidin (SA) was quite interesting. Overall, I find this design and the scope of this paper is suitable for the journal after a major revision.
1. There are no animal experiments to verify the results of in vitro experiments, I advise the author should supply the in vivo experiments to verify the effects of PTX-PLGA-SA/PFPs on the treatment and ultrasound imaging of ovarian cancer.
2. The author reported that PTX-PLGA/PFPs were prepared with a single emulsion (O/W) solvent evaporation method, as far as I know, the PLGA nanoparticles were usually prepared with a double emulsion(O/W/O), why you choose a single emulsion (O/W) solvent evaporation method? Please explain this.
3. The annotation of Figures cannot be seen clearly (Fig 1e, 1f, Fig 1g,1h, ect). The author should enlarge font.
4. The SEM and TEM in figure 1c,1d lacks bar, and some other figures.
5. Flow cytometry analysis of the connection efficiency of both SA and Ab bound to PTX-PLGA/PFPs in Figure, What is the sample size?
6. The annotation of CLSM pictures in Figure 4b is wrong, please revise.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.