Physiological Activity of Trace Element Germanium including Anticancer Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) The abstract is very short and could be improved.

2) Line26: "blood characteristics" is not scientifically sound.

3) L42: "oxygen respiration of cells" do you mean oxidative stress?

4) Avoid using small short paragraphs at the end of the Introduction.

5) What is the importance of personal photos of D.I. Mendeleev (left) and C. Winkler? It could be deleted or put in the Suppl. file as suppl. figure.

6) In general, many short paragraphs were found throughout the whole manuscript. Please note that one paragraph = one idea and so you should combine short paragraphs having the same idea.

7) This Review lacked summarizing data in the form of tables. The presentation of data in tables makes it easier for readers to understand and read the article.

8) This review also lacked figures and schematic diagrams which are essential components of any review article.

9) The proposed mechanism is very vague and short. It would better to be presented it in the form of a figure. Much available software can do this (BioRender ...... etc).

10) L424: "(see Chapter 2)," Is this a textbook!!!??

11) Conclusion is very weak and authors should add perspective, recommendation, and further studies.

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

The authors are very thankful to the Reviewer for the fruitful discussion and useful critique and recommendations.

Question 1) The abstract is very short and could be improved.

Answer. The authors thank the Reviewer for this comment. In the authors’ humble opinion the abstract adequately conveys the content of the article. We slightly edited it.

Q 2) Line26: "blood characteristics" is not scientifically sound.

A: Thank you very much for this comment. We thoroughly studied this issue. The term "blood characteristics" is common in the scientific literature (according to the Google Scholar it was used at least 14, 200 times in the scientific articles, and books).

Q 3) L42: "oxygen respiration of cells" do you mean oxidative stress?

A: We are thankful for this question. Indeed, it requires clarification. We added the explanation: “oxygen respiration (i.e., oxidative phosphorylation)”.

Q 4) Avoid using small short paragraphs at the end of the Introduction.

A: It is a very useful suggestion. We combined the small paragraphs of the same topic into a one of normal size.

Q 5) What is the importance of personal photos of D.I. Mendeleev (left) and C. Winkler? It could be deleted or put in the Suppl. file as suppl. figure.

A: Thank you. These two scientists played the crucial role in discovery of germanium. Their photo is an illustration for the historical part of the review.

Q 6) In general, many short paragraphs were found throughout the whole manuscript. Please note that one paragraph = one idea and so you should combine short paragraphs having the same idea.

A: Thanks a lot for this suggestion. We combined short paragraphs of the same idea where they don’t contain chemical structures.

Q 7) This Review lacked summarizing data in the form of tables. The presentation of data in tables makes it easier for readers to understand and read the article.

Thank you for this comment. There are only few tables in the book on germanium activity that summarized the data collected in several decades. We did not want to copy/paste. We mostly presented data for the last 10 years.

Q 8) This review also lacked figures and schematic diagrams which are essential components of any review article.

A: Than you. We added Figure 1, a diagram, and Figure 2, a scheme.

Q 9) The proposed mechanism is very vague and short. It would better to be presented it in the form of a figure. Much available software can do this (BioRender ...... etc).

A: Many thanks. It is just a putative mechanism based on the old publications. We explained it with the reaction scheme in Figure 2.

Q 10) L424: "(see Chapter 2)," Is this a textbook!!!??

A: Thank you very much. We replaced it with the title of the appropriate part: (see 2. Historical digression and toxicity of germanium compounds).

Q 11) Conclusion is very weak and authors should add perspective, recommendation, and further studies.

A: Thanks a lot for this comment. We added a paragraph in Conclusion with perspectives, recommendations, and further studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

The review presents the primary research from the last decade related to the аnticancer activity of germanium compounds. Germanium is an essential microelement. This review consists biological role of organic, inorganic and coordination germanium compounds, as well as a possible mechanism of anticancer action of various germanium compounds. This review is very interesting and useful. The literature cited in this review is sufficient in volume and content (178 references), inclusive from 1967 to the present day. I recommend that the journal editors accept the article with minor grammatical and technically corrections.

 

I recommend that the authors be a little more delicate in their statements regarding the synthesis and proof of germanium-132. I have immense respect for the Russian scientific community, but pitting one author against another, in my opinion, could have been avoided (see line 166-181).

Author Response

The authors are very thankful to the Reviewer for the kind words and useful critique and recommendation

Question 1.  I recommend that the authors be a little more delicate in their statements regarding the synthesis and proof of germanium-132. I have immense respect for the Russian scientific community, but pitting one author against another, in my opinion, could have been avoided (see line 166-181).

Answer: Thank you very much. We agree with the Reviewer and removed the controversial sentence and paragraph.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors said they added Figure 2 but I actually did not find this figure in the revised manuscript. Regarding the remaining comments, they responded to them.