Polysaccharide as a Separation Medium for Gel Electrophoresis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I combined here all comments on the matter and english.
L44 both…and replace with either…or
L 92, 98 use through once
L94 hives->honeycomb
L103-123 An energetic explanation of EEO. But water molecule is not charged, why does it move by electric field? Correct this passage.
L 186 ear lier-> above
L184-229 I am quite lost here. BSA is 7nm, and the pore is 100nm. Why is the pore small relative to BSA? L192 – Why is INSIDE pore is not for BSA to occupy? After these conditions that seem wrong to me, it makes no sense to me to follow the reasoning. The conclusions seem right, though. Please rewrite.
L 273 fluorescecen typo?
L323 positvely typo?
Fig 8. Please add real gel picture, either in the article or supplement
L 356 mo-moment what is this?
L358 used to the magnitude -> used to access the magnitude
L482 blacket proofread throughout
L494 exercised -> excised
L486-513 Does the procedure work only for highly expressed proteins? To make us believe the Fig 13A band is indeed an antibody (not yet purified), a negative HEK293 control would help.
L556 pI is hard to predict.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please see science comments.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for response to the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled ‘Polysaccharide as a separation medium for gel electrophoresis’ appears to address an innovative application of polysaccharides, which is a critical area of research in the field of biochemical separation technologies. The manuscript aims to expand the understanding of polysaccharides’ utility in gel electrophoresis, a fundamental technique widely used in molecular biology and biochemistry for analyzing macromolecules. To align the manuscript more closely with the Polysaccharides journal’s requirements, I recommend that the authors address the following comments.
1. I have noticed that the manuscript has been formatted using the template for the Antibodies journal rather than the prescribed template for the Polysaccharide journal.
2. I observed that the figures included in the manuscript are not accompanied by appropriate references.
3. The manuscript discusses the use of agarose, polyacrylamide, and starch as separation media in gel electrophoresis, yet it lacks the corresponding chemical structures of these polymers.
4. The introduction section of the manuscript appears to be quite brief and lacks specific objectives or straightforward research questions.
5. Again, I noticed that several figures included in the manuscript appear to be taken from other sources without accompanying permission from the original authors or publishers. This oversight could lead to copyright infringement issues.
6. The conclusion section of the manuscript appears to be quite brief and lacks concrete statements summarizing the findings and their implications.
7. I have noticed that the manuscript predominantly cites older journal articles, with limited references to more recent studies.
The manuscript seems formatted for another journal, possibly indicating it was not initially intended for the Polysaccharide journal. If this is the case, I recommend ensuring the content and presentation are thoroughly tailored to meet the specific focus and standards of this journal, enhancing its relevance and fit for the audience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript would benefit from minor edits to improve the clarity and flow of the English language. Some sentences may require rephrasing for better readability and to ensure that the scientific content is clearly communicated. I recommend thorough proofreading by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service to address these issues before final submission.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for response to the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review described the polysaccharide as a separation medium for gel electrophoresis. The authors have described the properties of starch and agarose gels in comparison with polyacrylamide gels, all of which are routinely used for the electrophoretic analysis of proteins and nucleic acids. However, there are still many issues that need to be addressed in order to meet the publication requirements.
1) Authors should detail in their introduction why they wrote this review and how this review is similar to previous content.
2) As a review, authors should have sources for the images they cite, and also if all the images are drawn by the authors themselves this is not in line with the rules of the review.
3) The author should be careful not to have duplicate styles of labeling within the image, for example, Figure 14 contains more than one A,B at the same time, which can be confusing, and it is recommended to partially change it to a,b.
4) Authors need to have a comparison between Polysaccharide and other polymers in their profile, e.g., porous polymers J. Polym. Sci. 2024, 62(8), 1517, fibers Progress in Polymer Science 81 (2018): 80-113., etc.
5）The writer should have presented more of an outlook instead of so few paragraphs
Author Response
Please see the attached file in response to the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter careful review, I am pleased to recommend accepting this manuscript in its current form. The study is well-executed, and the findings are clearly presented and contribute significantly to our understanding of polysaccharides as separation mediums in gel electrophoresis. The manuscript meets all the journal’s standards for publication and should be of great interest to the readership.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
