Albumin–Rutin Nanoparticles: Design, Characterization, and Biophysical Evaluation
, Adriana Elena Balan 1, Teodor Adrian Enache 2, Daniela Oprea 1,2, Monica Enculescu 2, Monica Florescu 3 and Melinda David 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editor,
authors described the Serum Albumine nanoparticles incorporating Rutin. The manuscript is well written and the compounds are well characterized. The only problem is that they didn't compared their results with the previously reported Albumine nanoparticles incorporating Rutin obtained with different methodologies and they didn't cite that works. I attached a file with my comments about this manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors describe a novel method for making Rutin nano particles. The authors have also tested these BSA-Ru NPs in vitro against fibroblasts.
The introduction & conclusion could be expanded to include some of the newer papers as mentioned below. Overall the references cited is insufficient & should be expanded.
Negahdari et al Phytother Res. 2021 Apr;35(4):1719-1738. Therapeutic benefits of rutin and its nanoformulations.
While the authors have shown that the fibroblasts are spared, the authors might have also benefitted by testing in vitro against a Ru sensitive cancer line as they intend to use these formulations for cancer drug delivery. This would strengthen the paper as Ru is an effective anticancer agent.
In vitro experiment against cancer line should be performed to show the utility & bioavailability of Ru
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal: Coatings
Title: Albumin-Rutin Nanoparticles: Design, Characterization, and 2 Biophysical Evaluation
The authors have contributed significantly in incorporating the antioxidant flavonoids into the bovine serum albumin nanoparticles using desolvation approach. The present work is interesting, and the as-prepared nanoparticle is technically evaluated with size factors and kinetic stability, but the manuscript lacks some characterization aspects and few technical discussions. Considering the above, I request authors to address the following comments, thereby suggesting the major revision for the present stage.
I suggest authors to address the following comments,
1. Authors can describe various techniques involved in the cancer therapy and then introduce the nanoparticle drug carriers and their significance in the introduction.
2. Improvement in nanocarriers is highly desired, as it tends to improve the pharmacokinetic behavior of the drugs. In addition to albumin nanotransporters, the authors can state other type of common carriers and then focus on the specific system.
3. It is rational to discuss other existing methods and contrast the adopted desolvation method, thereby audience will be able to understand widely.
4. The choice of Rutin is unclear, since there are number of antioxidant molecules present in the market. Why do authors specifically choose Rutin molecule, irrespective of its poor solubility?
5. Why there is a difference in the absorption stability among the control and experimental sample. In Figure 2, the absorption stability is carried out for 30 days. What would be the desired and ideal lifetime for the nanocarriers?
6. SPR angle studies shows the significance of biohybrids. Why the SPR angle vs time stability studies are carried out at 29oC? Authors can state the specific reason for the temperature.
7. Authors can discuss the primary and secondary reason for the cell viability among the control and biohybrids? Authors can add some standard cell viability value to pronounce the importance of the results achieved.
8. Authors can add some technical discussion and other supporting characterizations to portray the thermal stability.
9. It is crucial to connect and compare with the other recent literatures to highlight the state-of-the-art results. Therefore, authors can consider adding the comparison table or graphical image.
All the best for the revision. After receiving the convincing point-to-point responses, I will recommend it for the publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAt the present form, the article has little punctuation and grammatical errors. Therefore, I request the authors to proofread and revise accordingly to meet the publication standards.
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research is highly significant in advancing drug delivery and nanomedicine. By developing bovine serum albumin nanoparticles, especially those loaded with rutin, the study achieves precision in size and stability, showcasing potential efficacy over a 30-day period. Morphological analyses reveal spherical and nanometer-sized particles with uniform distribution. Utilizing SPR and electrochemical measurements, the study highlights the impact of BSA-Ru NPs on the DPPC liposomal system, emphasizing their potential as effective drug carriers. The observed interactions at specific temperature ranges underscore their suitability for targeted drug delivery.
In vitro assessments confirm high biocompatibility and minimal cytotoxic effects, essential for safe drug delivery. This work lays the foundation for future in vitro studies, providing valuable insights into cellular responses to flavonoids and opening avenues for exploring therapeutic effects. Overall, this research contributes significantly to advancing drug delivery strategies, offering promising developments in efficient and biocompatible nanomedicines.
The introduction effectively outlines the core problem and provides ample volume and information. In my view, it is satisfactory, and I have no further comments.
The entire experiment is meticulously planned and thoroughly detailed. The methods and procedures employed are accurately and comprehensively described.
In general, I have a positive opinion of the submitted manuscript for review, with just a few minor technical remarks to mention:
Please use square brackets [] for in-text citations. Please check the journal requirements (Instructions for Authors).
Also the references are not in the journal style. Please correct all of them to be unified with the journal style.
Punctuation and grammar check required.
Considering this, I suggest that the article be published after minor corrections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePunctuation and grammar checks are required.
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have added sufficient data. The paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree that the authors have addressed the majority of the comments with their perspective. At the present stage, I believe the manuscript has matured sufficient to publish in coatings journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors can proofread the entire document to avoid the minor grammatical and formatting errors.
