Bioactivity of Mupirocin Nanoparticle-Loaded Hydrogel against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
, Komwit Surachat 4, Panchalika Deachamag 3 and Teerapol Srichana 1,5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It seems meaningful results and well presented. But, the English needs to be revised a little.
And please check some minor comments below.
(1) Typo in lines 215-217 on page 5.
(2) Figure 1 is too small.
(3) Some text is not well identified in figure 4.
Author Response
We have corrected typo error lines 215-217 on page 5.
Figure 1 is expanded.
More explanation of figure 4 is provided.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article named 'Bioactivity of mupirocin...' by T. Srichana et al. has as main topic the loading of this compound onto nanoparticles-hydrogel system in order to enhance the antibacterial activity. The manuscript is organized in the classical way and has 23 references, including doi numbers. The introduction is well documented, however some more details about mupirocin are needed. The materials and method section described the MLH preparation, MIC and MBC measurements, and the flow cytometry details; other descriptions are presented in details, and the measurements are stated to be done in at least three replicates, that means a good reproducibility.
However, for the preparation of MLH supplementary details are needed, for example how much P407 was added to which quantity of water, and so on. This is required for other scientist to reproduce the work.
The results showed are correct and the discussion about the meaning of them is well conducted. The pictures in Figure 1 need to be bigger, as well as those from Figure 3. Conclusions are ending the manuscript are are correlated with the experimental data. The Supplementary data increases the value of the manuscript, including 5 Tables. I will also suggest to increase the number of references, as this kind of subject is well represented into literature (data about mupirocin, a comparison with other systems used by other authors, emphasizing what is new in this work).
Small typing errors:
-line 215, the use of brackets is not correct;
-line 387, write Table S2 instead of Table 2.
As a main conclusion, the manuscript is well written and follows a good way to present the experimental data and therefore can be accepted for publication, after small improvements.
Author Response
Preparation of MLH is proived in the supplementary.
Figures 1 and 3 are enlarged.
The brackets in line 215 is corrected.
Table 2 (line 387) is replaced with Table S2.
More references are provided.
