Recent Advances in Combating Bacterial Infections by Using Hybrid Nano-Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review is a very nice introduction into antibacterial nanomaterials with a special focus on hybrid nanosystems with combined action of multiple antibacterial agents or principles. It is very well written and comprehensive. The illustrations are well chosen and several tables summarize the state of the literature. I have no criticism and recommend publication of this article.
Small mistake:
Page 12, line251: „is still remained“
Author Response
Thank you for carefully reviewing our manuscript. I have attached the response of your comment here.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have attempted to provide a thorough summary of the nanohybrid systems as a possible solution for antimicrobial resistance. Before moving on to the next stage, several things need to be modified.
1. While the review has been characterized as for antimicrobial resistance, the term needs to be homogenized throughout the text. For example; Scheme 1 outlines the nanohydrbrid systems for bacterial infections.
2. In accordance with Scheme 1;
-The review must be divided into four sections, one for each nanohybrid system, and each area must be clearly defined and connected to the others.
-For instance, why and how did the section headed "Hybrid Nano-Systems for Combinational Therapy" follows the introduction and this section's discussion begins with "stimuli responsive?"
-Additionally, while other sections have not been adequately summarized, the authors have given stimuli-responsive nanohybrid systems 50% of the weight of the article.
-Regarding the inherently antimicrobial nano-systems, Section 2.4 is missing.
3. Why have the authors provided the applications of just inherently antimicrobial nano-systems (3. Applications of Inherently Antimicrobial Nano-Systems), which have not even been discussed in the article?
-This part should be revised with the application of a nanohybrid system for antimicrobial resistance.
4. The quality of all figures must be improved.
5. The abc (labels) of the figures is not consistent.
6. To draw readers in, it would be more appropriate to offer some prospects for the future work.
7. Please update or remove some very old references like reference number 26,75,97, and 99.
English language is fine.
Author Response
Thank you for kindly reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive comments gave us a chance to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The current manuscript (jnt-2550772) summarized the recent literatures on the potential anti-bacterial applications using nanomaterials. Following are some points need to be cleared before acceptance.
1. The motivation of current topic is not strong enough for support the “big title”. 204 references were quoted, however, most of which does not use “combating bacterial infections” as its primary objective. Please deeply think of the current topic and re-write the introduction section. In addition, I do not agree the idea that nano-system can overcome the antimicrobial resistance.
2. As suspense remains over the topic of nanotoxicity of using nanomaterials, please discuss this point in the introduction, firstly.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Hereby, I have attached the response letter
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The current manuscript (jnt-2550772-peer-review-v2) has been improved according to the suggestions of reviewers. The answers to my questions are acceptable. This work is interesting and important facing combating bacterial infections through nano-technologies.
