Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessCommunication

Peer-Review Record

Neuroscience and Neuroimmunology Solutions for Osteoarthritis Pain: Biological Drugs, Growth Factors, Peptides and Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Peripheral Nerves

NeuroSci 2021, 2(1), 45-58; https://doi.org/10.3390/neurosci2010003

by Ali Mobasheri^1,2,3

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Olumide A. Danisa

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

NeuroSci 2021, 2(1), 45-58; https://doi.org/10.3390/neurosci2010003

Submission received: 31 December 2020 / Revised: 17 January 2021 / Accepted: 20 January 2021 / Published: 1 February 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Neurosci)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This communication summarizes some of the treatments for osteoarthritis and for pain and suggests areas of investigation that might further the search for disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs. In general this is a worthy topic. However the way this information was presented was somewhat disorganized and disjointed. Some of the statements are unclear in their meaning. The conclusion section brings in a host of new concepts that had not been previously discussed. Some, such as the information about obesity, inflammation, and diabetes starting line 232 could have been introduced in the section 2. Osteoarthritis. The paragraph starting line 242 brings in a completely new idea regarding nanobodies and bispecific antibodies. It is not clear to my whey these were introduced in the Conclusions. IL-1 inhibitors are introduced as a treatment for OA in the first paragraph of Conclusions but should have been introduced in the Section 4. Emerging biological treatments for OA. Section 5 Monocloncal Antibodies Targeting Ion Channels would be better placed after section 7. Editorial changes are suggested as follows:

line 43 - delete "on"

line 51 - change address to addresses

line 66 - delete "sex and"

line 86 - change "date producing" to "date have produced"

Lines 86-91 - I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say

line 100 - delete "produce"

line 102 - change "readers to" to "readers are directed to"

line 112 - insert "are" before "injected" and delete "orally and" as mAbs are never given orally

line 120 - delete "by"

line 122 - insert "the" before "complete"

Figure 3 - suggest changing X to No for clarity

Figure 5 - middle yellow box - insert "that" before "mainly"

line 229 - change "be" to "the"

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

This communication summarizes some of the treatments for osteoarthritis and for pain and suggests areas of investigation that might further the search for disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs. In general this is a worthy topic. However the way this information was presented was somewhat disorganized and disjointed. Some of the statements are unclear in their meaning. The conclusion section brings in a host of new concepts that had not been previously discussed. Some, such as the information about obesity, inflammation, and diabetes starting line 232 could have been introduced in the section 2. Osteoarthritis. The paragraph starting line 242 brings in a completely new idea regarding nanobodies and bispecific antibodies. It is not clear to my whey these were introduced in the Conclusions. IL-1 inhibitors are introduced as a treatment for OA in the first paragraph of Conclusions but should have been introduced in the Section 4. Emerging biological treatments for OA. Section 5 Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Ion Channels would be better placed after section 7. Editorial changes are suggested as follows:

Author’s Response: Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed and helpful comments on my review article. I’m very grateful for the effort that you have put into your report and I hope that my responses below and the edits that I have made to the revised manuscript will meet with your approval. In your report above you make some specific suggestions for revisions. I agree with your suggestions and I have made the necessary modifications to the manuscript. I have expanded the idea of antibody therapy, focusing on nanobodies and bispecific antibodies. I also agree that some parts of the text were disorganised and disjointed and your comments have helped me improve the flow and readability of the paper and joining the arguments together more effectively.

line 43 - delete "on"