Therapeutic Applications for Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review is addressed to self-replicating RNA viruses that have become an attractive tool for anti-cancer therapy. The review is undoubtedly relevant and interesting for a wide range of specialists.
My comments and suggestion.
1. The review is hard to read, it is overloaded with facts and depleted in their understanding. It remains unclear: what the mechanism of selectivity of the antitumor virus cytotoxicity; how the effects of some viruses differs from the effects of other viruses, what the relationships between the direct cytotoxic antitumor effect of the virus and its indirect immune-mediated action …
2 2. It should be pointed out that the antiviral immune response sharply reduces the antitumor efficacy of repeated virus applications.
3 3. An abstract would be appropriate to reflect more widely available clinical data.
4 4. In the “conclusions” section it would be useful to outline the possible place of viral therapy in the complex (multiple-purpose) cancer treatment.
Author Response
This review is addressed to self-replicating RNA viruses that have become an attractive tool for anti-cancer therapy. The review is undoubtedly relevant and interesting for a wide range of specialists.
My comments and suggestion.
- The review is hard to read, it is overloaded with facts and depleted in their understanding. It remains unclear: what the mechanism of selectivity of the antitumor virus cytotoxicity; how the effects of some viruses differs from the effects of other viruses, what the relationships between the direct cytotoxic antitumor effect of the virus and its indirect immune-mediated action …
Response: I understand that there are plenty of facts but is it not the purpose of reviews to provide plenty of information! To “lighten” the review a bit in addition to Table 1, Table 2 has been added as well as Fig. 1 illustrating the delivery methods developed for oncolytic self-replicating RNA viruses.
- It should be pointed out that the antiviral immune response sharply reduces the antitumor efficacy of repeated virus applications.
Response: This point has now been addressed in the Conclusions section.
- An abstract would be appropriate to reflect more widely available clinical data.
Response: I respectfully disagree with this comment as in the current Abstract almost one third (61/199 words) deals with clinical trials.
- In the “conclusions” section it would be useful to outline the possible place of viral therapy in the complex (multiple-purpose) cancer treatment.
Response: The point suggested by the reviewer has now been discussed in the Conclusions section.
Reviewer 2 Report
* The author reviewed an interesting topic regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses but some moderate revision by a native English speaker or a specialized editing company is required. I have some issues:
* Please, make a table for the clinical trails.
* Please, make some figures explaining the different mechanisms of drug delivary and interacting of Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses with the cancer cells.
* Please, make a paragraph with table showing and discussing the various international patents regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses.
* Please, mention any FDA approved drugs regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses and if there is no any approved drugs, please, mention it.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
* The author reviewed an interesting topic regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses but some moderate revision by a native English speaker or a specialized editing company is required. I have some issues:
Response: The manuscript has now been checked and revised by an eminent English-speaking scientist with the experience of more than 300 peer-reviewed publications.
* Please, make a table for the clinical trails.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion! Table 2 with examples of clinical trials conducted with oncolytic self-replicating RNA viruses has been added.
* Please, make some figures explaining the different mechanisms of drug delivary and interacting of Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses with the cancer cells.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion! Figure 1 describing the delivery of oncolytic self-replicating RNA viruses has been added.
* Please, make a paragraph with table showing and discussing the various international patents regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses.
Response: I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. Although a table on patents could be useful under some circumstances, I feel it not under the scope of this review.
* Please, mention any FDA approved drugs regarding Oncolytic Self-Replicating RNA Viruses and if there is no any approved drugs, please, mention it.
Response: Text has been added to the end of section 4 stating that no FDA approved drugs are yet available but mentioning that the VSV-based vaccine Ervebo against Ebola virus disease ahs been approved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has improved the article. I have no more comments or suggestions.
Author Response
OK, thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
* The authors made good efforts in the improving the manuscript quality. I do not understand the reason for non suitability of patents writing.
Author Response
I still stand by my point that a paragraph and table on patents would make the review unnecessarily long (Reviewer 2 already complained that "the review is hard to read and overloaded with facts". Moreover, it would not add much to the therapeutic applications and therefore I do not consider it to be the focus of the review. Patent business is a major field of its own. It would be much better to separately write a review on "Patents on Self-replicating RNA Viruses and Their Applications", which I would be happy to consider if IJMS would be interested.
