Nanoparticle-Based Modification of the DNA Methylome: A Therapeutic Tool for Atherosclerosis?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 29: Termin uptake is usually used for “uptake by cell”. For nanoparticles, better use “loading” or “conjugation”.
- Line 58: What XX stands for?
- Line 59-60: Terms “accumulation” and “infiltration” are better switch between each other.
- Line 84: But what about the adverse effects of systemic administration?
- You should replace Figure 1 with a comprehensive Table showing the main parameters, advantages, and disadvantages of delivery systems, currently shown in Figure 1.
- Line 108, 113 Avoid using “obvious”, especially when you do not mention possible drawbacks. What can be the adverse effects of DNMTi administration?
- It is not necessary to add phrases “see [] for a recent review”. Just reference is enough
- Line 147: please remove space in “conventional”
- You should probably mention some recent reviews about NPs for atherosclerosis treatment (7150/ntno.62730, 10.3390/pharmaceutics12111056) at the beginning of section 4.2.
- Please pay attention to the abbreviation NP (nanoparticle). In some places, it should be corrected in plural form – NPs (nanoparticles), like lines 147, 151, etc.
- Section 6: there is no need for a separate section for diabetes in an AS-focused paper. You can mention diabetes application somewhere when you mention DNMT
There is a mixed impression of the manuscript. The only section relevant to the title of the article is 4.1. In fact, it presents only one DNA demethylation approach that can be applied now. The remaining sections are represented general approaches to the treatment of atherosclerosis with nanoparticles, or even diabetes and cancer.
In this work, I would like to see more information on DNA methylation and demethylation concerning atherosclerosis since section 3 now gives minimal information.
Section 2 is also very short and does not reflect the deeper essence of atherosclerosis. It must either be expanded to a full-fledged section or combined with the Introduction.
Author Response
We thank this reviewer for thoroughly reading our work and for the valuable suggestions.
- Line 29: Termin uptake is usually used for “uptake by cell”. For
nanoparticles, better use “loading” or “conjugation”.
Our response: We changed the text accordingly.
- Line 58: What XX stands for?
Our response: It was an error, apologies (now line 56).
- Line 59-60: Terms “accumulation” and “infiltration” are better
switch between each other.
Our response: We changed the text accordingly (now line 59-62).
- Line 84: But what about the adverse effects of systemic
administration?
Our response: We added a dedicated paragraph (now lines 113-115).
- You should replace Figure 1 with a comprehensive Table
showing the main parameters, advantages, and disadvantages
of delivery systems, currently shown in Figure 1.
Our response: We created a new Table 1 and eliminated the figure. We hope that the table will be acceptable.
- Line 108, 113 Avoid using “obvious”, especially when you do
not mention possible drawbacks. What can be the adverse
effects of DNMTi administration?
Our response: We changed the text accordingly. We hope that the issue is suitably addressed by the new dedicated paragraph (now lines 113-115).
- It is not necessary to add phrases “see [] for a recent review”.
Just reference is enough
Our response: We changed the text accordingly throughout the manuscript.
- Line 147: please remove space in “conventional”
Our response: We changed the text accordingly.
- You should probably mention some recent reviews about NPs
for atherosclerosis treatment (7150/ntno.62730,
10.3390/pharmaceutics12111056) at the beginning of section
4.2.
Our response: We introduced that reference and an additional one.
- Please pay attention to the abbreviation NP (nanoparticle). In
some places, it should be corrected in plural form – NPs
(nanoparticles), like lines 147, 151, etc.
Our response: We changed the text accordingly throughout the manuscript.
- Section 6: there is no need for a separate section for diabetes
in an AS-focused paper. You can mention diabetes application
somewhere when you mention DNMT
Our response: We eliminated that section.
There is a mixed impression of the manuscript. The only section
relevant to the title of the article is 4.1. In fact, it presents only one
DNA demethylation approach that can be applied now. The
remaining sections are represented general approaches to the
treatment of atherosclerosis with nanoparticles, or even diabetes
and cancer.
Our response: Thanks for the frank assessment. We added brief explanations for those sections (lines 23-24; 255-257; 277-279).
In this work, I would like to see more information on DNA
methylation and demethylation concerning atherosclerosis since
section 3 now gives minimal information.
Our response: We added the relevant information to section 3.
Section 2 is also very short and does not reflect the deeper
essence of atherosclerosis. It must either be expanded to a fullfledged
section or combined with the Introduction.
Our response: We expanded section 2.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provided a comprehensive review on the advances on the topic of nanoparticles-based strategies to modify the DNA methylome of atherosclerosis.
The article is well-written and no major issues were found.
However, the authors should consider removing the paragraphs 5 and 6, because they are not focused on atherosclerosis, which represents the focus of this review.
Author Response
The authors provided a comprehensive review on the advances on
the topic of nanoparticles-based strategies to modify the DNA
methylome of atherosclerosis.
The article is well-written and no major issues were found.
However, the authors should consider removing the paragraphs 5
and 6, because they are not focused on atherosclerosis, which
represents the focus of this review.
Our response: We are grateful for the positive review. We added paragraphs to explain why we believe that some information outside the atherosclerosis field needs to be included (lines 23-24; 255-257; 277-279). We hope that the reviewer will find our response acceptable.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made some minor edits to the text, which made the article looks more scientifically significant. Of course, more information could be added directly about the main topic (DNA methylome and its applications to AS). However, obviously, the article can be accepted in this form.
