Mechanical Characterization of 3D-Printed Patterned Membranes for Cardiac Tissue Engineering: An Experimental and Numerical Study
, Bertrand Guibert 1, Mélanie M. Leroux 1, João F. Mano 2, Franck Cleymand 1 and Jean-Philippe Jehl 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Bioprinting is an emerging technology with various applications in making functional tissue constructs to replace injured or diseased tissues, including cardiovascular disease.
It was a pleasure to read this manuscript!
However, I suggest revising the English and shortening the introduction to make it easier to read.
The experimental design is well done, analyzing the mechanical properties of the construct including the in vitro degradation. The authors didn't investigate the biodegradability mimicking the natural microenvironment of the tissues (e.g. cardiomiocyte cell medium), and focussed on 10 mg/L of lysozyme solution only. Could you explain this choise?
At line 84 the authors wrote: "Chitosan, gelatin and guar gum as a promising candidate material for cardiac patches". It would be appropriate to include relevant informations and references on the use of these substances in the carviovascular field.
The manuscript does not contain statistical analysis. Can the authors explain this choise?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. tissue engineering may be key word.
2. the introduction must come up with more details reference on cardiac tissue engineering and 3D printing.
3. What is the uniquness of this research. Please mention.
4. Guar gum must be purified. Mention it.
5. Degradation profile needs citation.
6. Discuss on other tissue engineering method too such as
https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-016-0500-8; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23378-3
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well structured, and gives interesting informations in cardiovascular research. However, the manuscript does not include the statistical analysis, which the authors justify as follows: "We did not perform statystical analysis because the number of replicates used for this study is sufficient to show the differences between the groups but not large enough to perform an accurate and rigorous statystical analysis". In order to speak of "numerical study" (words included in the title of the manuscript), statistical analysis is mandatory.
Author Response
As suggested by the reviewer, statistical analysis has been performed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Can be accepted
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for its time and suggestions
