Stem Cells Collection and Mobilization in Adult Autologous/Allogeneic Transplantation: Critical Points and Future Challenges
, Valeria Tomarchio 2, Maria Antonietta Tafuri 2, Cecilia Bonchi 1, Gloria Palazzo 1, Carolina Nobile 1, Alessandra Marinucci 1, Marcella Mele 2, Ombretta Annibali 2, Luigi Rigacci 2 and Michele Vacca 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present review aims to provide insights into the critical aspects of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and collection that are the main challenges in transplantation. Very interesting and innovative topic.
The references are in accordance with the cited texts.
The figure is useful and nice.
I report the corrections I deem necessary:
Abstract: from line 21 there is a list, but each sentence is separated like if they were all separate periods. Rewrite
Introduction. Line 45-49: Remove bold.
Lin 47: where is the reference for this information “the number of PBSCs in the 46 peripheral blood is 0.1-0.5%”?
Line 61: it is probably 3 x 108 and not 3x108. Correct.
Line 80: Specify the mode, route of administration of granulocyte 80 colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)
Line 120: “Plerixafor, an antagonist of CXCL12-CXCR4 interaction was tested with G-CSF and alone for healthy donor mobilization.” Write more clearly the concept of single or combined administration
Lines 134-137: Unclear period. Rephrase
Line 160: “HematopoieticSCs” space
Lines 235-237: Unclear period. Rephrase
Line 275-281: Remove the bold and rework without the question.
347-351: Remove bold. The same applies to subsequent periods
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
|
||
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
|
|
The present review aims to provide insights into the critical aspects of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and collection that are the main challenges in transplantation. Very interesting and innovative topic. The references are in accordance with the cited texts. The figure is useful and nice. I report the corrections I deem necessary: Abstract: from line 21 there is a list, but each sentence is separated like if they were all separate periods. Rewrite. Introduction. Line 45-49: Remove bold. Lin 47: where is the reference for this information “the number of PBSCs in the 46 peripheral blood is 0.1-0.5%”? Line 61: it is probably 3 x 108 and not 3x108. Correct. Line 80: Specify the mode, route of administration of granulocyte 80 colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF).  Line 120: “Plerixafor, an antagonist of CXCL12-CXCR4 interaction was tested with G-CSF and alone for healthy donor mobilization.”  Write more clearly the concept of single or combined administration. Lines 134-137: Unclear period. Rephrase Line 160: “HematopoieticSCs” space. Lines 235-237: Unclear period. Rephrase Line 275-281: Remove the bold and rework without the question. 347-351: Remove bold. The same applies to subsequent periods
|
||
|
Response 1: Abstract: from line 21 there is a list, but each sentence is separated like if they were all separate periods. Rewrite. We rewrote. Introduction. Line 45-49: Remove bold. The paper is structured like an interview. Any questions are written in bold. We leave the choice to remove bold to the Editor Lin 47: where is the reference for this information “the number of PBSCs in the 46 peripheral blood is 0.1-0.5%”? We added it. Line 61: it is probably 3 x 108 and not 3x108. Correct. We correct it Line 80: Specify the mode, route of administration of granulocyte 80 colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We added route of administration.  Line 120: “Plerixafor, an antagonist of CXCL12-CXCR4 interaction was tested with G-CSF and alone for healthy donor mobilization.”  Write more clearly the concept of single or combined administration. The concept was rephrased. Lines 134-137: Unclear period. Rephrase The concept was rephrased. Line 160: “HematopoieticSCs” space. We correct it Lines 235-237: Unclear period. Rephrase The concept was rephrased. Line 275-281: Remove the bold and rework without the question. The paper is structured like an interview. Any questions are written in bold. We leave the choice to remove bold to the Editor 347-351: Remove bold. The same applies to subsequent periods The paper is structured like an interview. Any questions are written in bold. We leave the choice to remove bold to the Editor
|
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors As authors claimed in the abstract section, the present manuscript is aimed to addresskey questions and provide insights into the critical aspects of mobilizing and collectionhematopoietic stem cells for transplantation purposes. However, the main problem withthe manuscript is that many HSC mobilization and collection current key points are
neither mentioned nor discussed. For instance, Pediatric issues ( either autologous and allogeneic) Minors as transplant donors, Defining bad mobilizers and how to deal with them, Mobilization regimens according to diseases ( pediatric solid tumors, lymphoma and or myeloma patients) Cell targets for transplantation among others.
I think that the manuscript should be scheduled in autologous (first) and allogeneic
issues and should include specific comments for pediatrics and adult patients. Comments on the Quality of English Language
Just minor typo errors
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The feedback was greatly appreciated and contributed to improving the clarity and comprehensibility of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think that authors have adequately addressed the suggestions and criticisms
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
