Next Article in Journal
Thermodynamic Characteristics of Phenacetin in Solid State and Saturated Solutions in Several Neat and Binary Solvents
Next Article in Special Issue
Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Signaling Pathway in Lung Cancer: An Update Regarding Potential Drugs and Natural Products
Previous Article in Journal
Ruthenacycles and Iridacycles as Transfer Hydrogenation Catalysts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cattleianal and Cattleianone: Two New Meroterpenoids from Psidium cattleianum Leaves and Their Selective Antiproliferative Action against Human Carcinoma Cells
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Efficacy of a Covalent Microtubule Stabilizer in Taxane-Resistant Ovarian Cancer Models

Molecules 2021, 26(13), 4077; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26134077
by Samantha S. Yee 1,2 and April L. Risinger 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Molecules 2021, 26(13), 4077; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26134077
Submission received: 12 May 2021 / Revised: 23 June 2021 / Accepted: 30 June 2021 / Published: 3 July 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled Efficacy of a Covalent Microtubule Stabilizer in Taxane-Resistant Ovarian Cancer Models. In my opinion, the study was properly undertaken, the results are promising and are well presented and discussed.

My suggestions are:

1.- Include units (nM) in Tables 1 and 2 below the names Paclitaxel and Taccalonolide AF.

2.- In Figure 3, what do authors mean by n=3 and n=2 in figure legend? This is not explained in Materials and Methods.

3.- In Figure 5, legend: “(D) Quantification of NCI/ADR-RES cells in the spleens of animals at the time of AF treatment (day 11) or 29 days after treatment with AF or vehicle (day 40)” seems not to correspond to what is shown in the figure.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The major problem is that the authors should describe clearly why select those concentrations of the drugs ( paclitaxel and taccalonolide AF) for in vitro and in vivo test. The criterion for the selection is critical , or the results may be not reasonable.

figure 3 and figure 4, should present or display the photograph of staining colony formation and peeled tumors, not only the column chart.

Figure 5D, words for the X axis need to be modified. The figure legend, “NCI/ADR-RES cells in the spleens of animals at the time of AF treatment (day 11) or 29 days after treatment with AF or vehicle (day 40).” need to be verified?

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript the authors clearly demonstrate that the microtubule stabiliser taccalonolide AF, is less susceptible to Pgp-mediated resistance than paclitaxel and has a higher degree of cellular persistence after drug washout most likely due to its covalent binding to tubulin, the basic building block of microtubules. They demonstrate    also that the taccalonolide AF provides also  a potential advantage in taxane-resistant ovarian cancer models both in cellulo and in mice xenograft model.
Using the same drug resistant tutor cell model in mice xenografts, the same research group has previously shown that targeted delivery of taccalonolides to the tumor could be an effective, longlasting approach to treat drug-resistant tumors (cited ref 20).  Here, in this manuscript they extend their results  and most importantly demonstrate an advantage of taccalonolide AF over paclitaxel in a disseminated metastatic ovarian cancer model, notably the spleen. Based on the results the authors  suggest that the taccalonolides are promising agents to be potentially  used in the localized treatment of overian cancer

The manuscript is well written and merits publication at its current form.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the revised manuscript is acceptable.

Back to TopTop