Development of Photonic Multi-Sensing Systems Based on Molecular Gates Biorecognition and Plasmonic Sensors: The PHOTONGATE Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the manuscript describes a proposal to generate  a sensor platform capable of detecting several targets simultaneously. Although this is not a research paper, it is an interesting proposal with some novel ideas. The molecular gate approach is certainly the strongest aspect of the proposal. Here are a few suggestions to the authors:

 

1) please, be consistent with the acronyms. The abstract and the body of the text uses "Local Surface Plasmonic Resonance", while the correct term (also used in the manuscript) is "localized surface plasmon resonance" (LSPR).

 

2) the IUPAC term is "limit of detection" (LOD) and not detection limit (DL). 

3) the values in RIU are not LODs. They are the resolution of the (L)SPR instrumentation.

4) there are examples of SPR multiplex imaging using transmission mode (i.e., they don't require the complex prism setup indicated in the text). Examples include multiple sensors based on arrays of either nanoparticules or nanoholes.

5) The molecular gates are really a nice approach. maybe more details about the types of structures and modification chemistry could be included.

6) Is the proposed EBL procedure amenable for scale up? Some comments about that should be added.

 

English is fine.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to thank you comments and suggestions.  In the attached document you will find the responses.

Kind regards,

Maribel

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with a groundbreaking project. The authors will develop an novel optical biosensing platform. They will implement molecular gates as a biorecognition method, especially those that may be suitable for a multiplexing, high sensitivity, and label-free system. The article is well-written, and I am convinced this work is highly interesting to the scientific community. However, before publication, the authors should make the following corrections to improve the quality of the article.

Some notes:

In general, the quality of all the figures is low, and they appear to be blurred. To improve the clarity of the paper, I strongly suggest that the authors include a photograph of the whole setup. Additionally, I recommend extending the introduction sections to present the theory behind the novel photonic sensor, as well as the interaction of the evanescent wave with the molecular gate.

Lines 71-77. This paragraph is commonly found in reviews and biosensor articles. I suggest the author expand on it by including information about new technologies such as digital PCR and microarrays. These technologies have fast time resolution, high sensitivity, and the ability to process several samples.

Figure 1. The scheme should be improved by separating biochemical recognition into biorecognition, surface chemistry, and transducers.

Lines 119-123. The authors discussed the benefits of plasmonic biosensors compared to the complex fabrication process required for silicon photonic devices. Nonetheless, it has been proven that silicon photonic biosensors exhibit greater sensitivity than plasmonic sensors. To enhance the clarity of the article, I suggest that the authors include a comparative table of label-free photonic biosensors.

Lines 175-182, section 2. This paragraph is like one in the introduction section. Remove or improve it.

Lines 227-229. According to the authors, the sensing mechanism produces a variation in refractive index, which increases the sensitivity of the photonic sensor. Can the authors provide evidence of this based on theory and optical simulation?

Line 263 should be before the figure 3.

Lines 319-328. The author should provide more detailed explanations for each optical system component, such as the source, lens, and spectrometer.

Based on my understanding, it would be beneficial if the conclusions are presented in a more detailed and comprehensive manner.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for your thorough revision. It is been very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Attached you will find the detailed responses to your comments.

Kind regards,

Maribel

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf