In Vitro Targeting and Imaging of Neurogenic Differentiation in Mouse Bone-Marrow Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have submitted an article on the cellular uptake of SPIONs and cell migration. I would like to recommend its publication after minor revisions:

The surface modification with dopamine and 675-nm NHS and the phase transfer are insufficiently described and characterized. The cited work also does not describe it.

The authors claim: “This study intends to report the synthesis strategy to develop SPIONs that can be effectively targeted at the injury site by a magnetic field.”

This is not adequately described and presented in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, Kim et al. claimed the development of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) that can be effectively targeted at the injury site by a magnetic field. As it stands, the reviewer is not very enthusiastic about publishing this manuscript in the current form and the following major concerns need to be addressed for further consideration of this manuscript.

1.     Delivery of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) using SPIONs and the permanent magnet has been reported earlier (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19(5), 1376). What makes this article novel compared to the similar reports?

2.     The effect of nanoparticles on neurogenic differentiation is not discussed in detail.

3.     In the discussion section, rather than discussing the results, the authors were trying to explain the importance and prior arts, which were supposed to be included in the introduction.

4.     Migration experiment is rudimentary in nature. The experiments need to be performed after considering the real scenario within the body. Gravity effect needs to be checked. Effects of the viscosity of the medium and the distance between the sample and magnet are not discussed well. The vials shown in figure 5 are not labeled and not mentioned in the text.

5.     Spectroscopic and microscopic characterizations of SPION are missing.

6.     Cytotoxicity after migration experiments needs to be discussed.

7.     What is the name of ‘organism bioimaging instrument’?

8.     Data for the control experiments using 50-nm SPIONs is not presented in the manuscript.

9.     Conclusion of the work is missing in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad that the authors revised the manuscript after conducting some experiments and incorporating them into the revised version.

The FOBI image of the magnetic induction of commercial SPIONs labeled MSCs (Figure S4) is confusing. More explanation is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx