Di (Isoquinolin-1-Yl) Sulfane (DIQS) Inhibits Melaninogenesis by Modulating PKA/CREB and MAPK Signaling Pathways

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written, has important results and should be of great interest to the readers.

I recommend that this paper be acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your good evaluation of our manuscript. We partially modified the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Once again, thank you for reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting original study testing a new whitening substance (Di (isoquinolin-1-yl) sulfane) in in vitro study; I have some queries:

What program did you use to perform the statistical analysis? It must be added to the materials and methods section, also adding the maker of the program, the version, and the location of the company.

Do you plan to do other in vitro studies or do you think that this substance may be ready for human studies, considering the fact that animal experimentation is prohibited?

I think that in the introduction, current treatments for hyperpigmentation should be added; for example, at line 41, you could add: "These lesions are usually treated with melanin-specific lasers, that are associated with various side effects, as topical drugs have usually poor effectiveness". and add a citation such as: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11167478 and doi: 10.1089/photob.2020.4850.

Author Response

First of all, I am very grateful for your kind and detailed review of our manuscript. We revised the manuscript by doing our best for the points you pointed out. English language and spelling were checked once again and corrected by a native speaker. Please review our manuscript once again.
 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Related to page 4 / 163 - source temperature 550C - please check the value set on the ESI source, at 300ul/min flow with high ACN content for the end of the gradient programming, the temperature level can yield some degradation of the organic compounds.

Author Response

First of all, I am very grateful for your review of our manuscript. We revised our manuscript as you pointed out. We partially modified the manuscript. English language and spelling were checked once again and corrected by a native speaker. Please review our manuscript once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The study presented the deep biochemical mechanism of DIQS for inhibiting agent development of melanogenesis. 

Abstract: -

Introduction: It seems that the authors focused on the melanogenesis in the first paragraph, but the real highlight is the DIQS, may be extend the introduction a little explaining the background into this new product? 

L62-64: missing the ref. 

L69-72, and 74-76: any other research explaining this mechanism than ref. 12 (and 15.). The" self cite" is not very scientific. 

Seems that the authors use the same model, for testing different products? wondering if the methodology in Ref. 12- 15 were exactly the same?

Please add the importance of DIQS.

Materials and methods:

2.1. -2.3 missing the country 

2.4 The detail source of Zebrafish should be added and approval number should be reported. 

2.5 Why reported rpm here?

**The information detail of all equipments and reagent are required. 

2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 why different ABS were uses for all these tests? 

2.6 missing ref. and rpm again this time? 

2.12 May present the sequence in table. 

May be missing the DIQS treatment? i.e, range of concentrations? 

L 160-164, require reference here. 

Results

There is a lot going on in Figure 1, in fact it can brake down to figures. - much clearer I suppose. Why Figure A is needed? 

Figure 3 A and B may combine? or A-D should be presented as table instead. same goes for Figure 4. 

Discussion:

There is not a lot of work to discuss, I suppose. Moreover, choice cites and discussion is a little to limit i.e., L 559-565 only referred the safety. 

 

 

Author Response

First of all, I am very grateful for your kind and detailed review of our manuscript. We revised the manuscript by doing our best for the points you pointed out. English language and spelling were checked once again and corrected by a native speaker. Please review our manuscript once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in a current form.