SVX Spider Silk-Inspired Biopolymer and Enhanced Cosmetics Efficacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview comments
The authors introduced SVX as a biopolymer with high potential in cosmetic field. They
assayed SVX biodegrability as well as diverse safety test to assay its application to human
skin and hair. They also assayed its antioxidant and barrier forming activity. Moreover, they
show that SVX has encapsulating activity, which increase active compound effect on skin.
My suggestion is to accept with revision. Revisions on the paper are:
1. Materials and Methods sections are not clear and need to be written in more details.
2. In overall, there is a need to be improvement in figure legends and the description of
the abbreviation.
3. In line 175, demonstrated that pure form of SVX, its antioxidants activity is
equivalent to 750 mM of L-ascorbic. How much accurate of concentration and which
formular used? Please inform the details.
4. when examining the graph results, there are no statistical numerical values
presented. Doesn’t this indicate that it’s not an independent replication experiment?
5. The paper’s title describes a “Revolutionizing cosmetic delivery system,” there is a
need for additional information regarding Revolutionizing cosmetic delivery system
within the paper.
6. "Method and materials" need to be described in detail. The experimental method
of figure1; SEM is also not described.
7. A control group is needed for each experiment, and there is a need to explain how
competitive or different it is compared to the control.
8. All Figures are not described any asterisk (*) that means statistical significance.
9. In figure 3, concentration of SVX is not described. The dilution ratio is not suitable
for being compared antioxidant activity of SVX with L-ascorbic acid. If SVX is
purified material, the concentration can be described. Also, the evidence that the
antioxidant activity of SVX is equivalent for 750 mM L-ascorbic acid requires further
clarification.
10. Figure 4 and figure 5 need to be indicate statistical figure for the data, not shown
picture only.
11. Please provide SVX full name.
12. Is the synthesis process of SVX established? From page 2 line 59, it is stated that
SVX is synthesized in bacteria by introducing spider silk related DNA into bacteria.
However, how fermentation is related is not explained.
13. Please provide references that show SVX has antioxidant activity.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files
Comment 1: Materials and Methods sections are not clear and need to be written in more details.
Response 1: The 'Materials and Methods' section has been revised, and additional data has been added.
Comment 2: In overall, there is a need to be improvement in figure legends and the description of
the abbreviation.
Response 2: All figures, graphs, and tables were revised and corrected.
Comment 3: In line 175, demonstrated that pure form of SVX, its antioxidants activity is
equivalent to 750 mM of L-ascorbic. How much accurate of concentration and which
formular used? Please inform the details.
Response 3: The SVX was tested in a water solution at a concentration of 1% w/w. The final report of the DPPH test performed by BIO-EC (France) is attached.
Comment 4: when examining the graph results, there are no statistical numerical values
presented. Doesn’t this indicate that it’s not an independent replication experiment?
Response 4: All graphs were revised, and statistics were added. In addition, the tables with standard deviations and p-values were added to the manuscript as well.
Comment 5:
The paper’s title describes a “Revolutionizing cosmetic delivery system,” there is a
need for additional information regarding Revolutionizing cosmetic delivery system
within the paper.
Response 5: The title was revised.
Comment 6: Method and materials need to be described in detail. The experimental method
of figure1; SEM is also not described.
Response 6: Additional details regarding SEM measurements were added to the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 7: A control group is needed for each experiment, and there is a need to explain how
competitive or different it is compared to the control.
Response 7: Additional tables were added that contain control samples.
Comment 8: All Figures are not described any asterisk (*) that means statistical significance.
Response 8: Additional tables were added and they contain P values.
Comment 9: In figure 3, concentration of SVX is not described. The dilution ratio is not suitable
for being compared antioxidant activity of SVX with L-ascorbic acid. If SVX is
purified material, the concentration can be described. Also, the evidence that the
antioxidant activity of SVX is equivalent for 750 mM L-ascorbic acid requires further
clarification.
Response 9: The concentration of SVX in the study is 1% SVX w/w in a water dispersion. The calculation of comparison between SVX and Vitamin C in the same units was added in the next.
Comment 10: Figure 4 and figure 5 need to be indicate statistical figure for the data, not shown
picture only.
Response 10: Two tables were added to the text.
Comment 11: Please provide SVX full name.
Response 11: Full INCI name of SVX was added.
Comment 12: Is the synthesis process of SVX established? From page 2 line 59, it is stated that
SVX is synthesized in bacteria by introducing spider silk related DNA into bacteria.
However, how fermentation is related is not explained.
Response 12: An additional explanation regarding SVX production was added in the Material and Methods section.
Comment 13: Please provide references that show SVX has antioxidant activity.
Response: Please find attached the full report of Antioxidant activity (DPPH test) performed by BIO-EC, in addition, references 19-21 were added.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I write you in regard to your manuscript entitled SVX: Revolutionizing Cosmetic Delivery Systems for Enhanced Efficacy.
- title must be revised.
- the introduction missed references. please, provide them since the first paragraph.
- the text style was elaborated with too many adjectives. please, revise the entire text.
- what is or what is the meaning of SVX?
- experimental section must be revised, describing the methods for each test. Please, use subitems.
- authors must present the approval from a local ethics committee since in vivo tests with participants were performed.
- references were poorly distributed.
- statistics were not found in the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files.
Comment 1: - title must be revised.
Response 1: The title was revised.
Comment 2: - the text style was elaborated with too many adjectives. please, revise the entire text.
Response 2: The entire text of the manuscript was revised.
Comment 3: - what is or what is the meaning of SVX?
Response 3: The full INCI name of SVX was added to the text
Comment 4: experimental section must be revised, describing the methods for each test. Please, use subitems.
Response 4: The entire Materials and Methods section was revised and details were added.
Comment 5: authors must present the approval from a local ethics committee since in vivo tests with participants were performed.
Response 5: The in vivo tests performed by the authors regarding glycolic acid release were removed from the text and replaced with in vitro tests. The in vivo studies performed by BIO-EC (France) were added to the text, along with approval from the local ethics committee.
Comment 6: - references were poorly distributed.
Response 6: Additional 30 references were added to the text
Comment 7: statistics were not found in the text.
Response 7: All graphs, tables and figures were revised, and statistics were added to the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript.
- please, explain "redifine" in abstract.
- please, add methods, main results and conclusion in the abstract.
- please, add references in Material and Methods (examples:
10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.02.039; 10.3390/cosmetics9060141; ) and add experimental details. As presented, readers will not be able to reproduce the methods.
- in Results, there are experimental details that must at Material and Methods.
- Figure 3 lacked information to be considered self-explanatory.
- describe the statistical treatment.
- results/discussion must mirror the experimental section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your valuable feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and quality of the work. Below, we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments:
Comment 1: Please, explain the term "redefine" in the abstract.
Response 1: Agreed. The term "redefine" was not appropriate for the content and intention of the manuscript. We have revised the sentence in the abstract to better align with our message.
Comment 2: Please, add methods, main results, and conclusion in the abstract.
Response 2: Agreed. We have rewritten the abstract to clearly present the main methods, key results, and conclusions.
Comment 3: Please, add references in the Materials and Methods section (examples: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.02.039; 10.3390/cosmetics9060141) and provide more experimental details. As presented, readers will not be able to reproduce the methods.
Response 3: Agreed. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to include additional references and have provided more detailed experimental procedures to ensure reproducibility.
Comment 4: In the Results section, there are experimental details that should be in the Materials and Methods.
Response 4: Agreed. We have moved the relevant experimental details, particularly regarding the antioxidant experiment, to the Methods section.
Comment 5: Figure 3 lacks information to be self-explanatory.
Response 5: Agreed. We have added a more detailed title, labels for the axes, and a subtitle to Figure 3 to ensure it is self-explanatory.
Comment 6: Describe the statistical treatment.
Response 6: The statistical treatment has been added to the Methods section.
Comment 7: The results/discussion must mirror the experimental section.
Response 7: Agreed. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to ensure that the Results and Discussion sections are consistent with the experimental details provided in the Materials and Methods section.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your constructive review. Your comments have greatly improved the quality of our work, and we hope the revisions meet your expectations.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I would like to register once more thank you for the improvement of your manuscript.
There is still a need for correction. Please, in the abstract, and according to your results, SVX was safe and not "...SVX’s capacity to 14
reduce irritation...". The last sentence of the conclusion could be eliminated since it seemed too speculative.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks once again for your valuable feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which have further contributed to improving the clarity and accuracy of our work. Below, we have provided detailed responses to your recent comments:
Comment 1: In the abstract, according to your results, SVX was safe, and not "...SVX’s capacity to reduce irritation...".
Response 1: Agreed. We have revised the sentence regarding the safety tests (line 14) to better reflect our findings.
Comment 2: The last sentence of the conclusion could be eliminated as it seemed too speculative.
Response 2: Agreed. We have revised the last sentence of the paragraph in line 21 to remove speculative language.
Thank you once again for your time and valuable input in reviewing the manuscript. We appreciate your assistance in refining our work.
