Next Article in Journal
Hydrogel Encapsulation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Derived Exosomes for Tissue Engineering
Next Article in Special Issue
Systematic Identification of Protein Targets of Sub5 Using Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteome Microarrays
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Mucus Gland Bioreactor in Loach Paramisgurnus dabryanus
Previous Article in Special Issue
PACAP for Retinal Health: Model for Cellular Aging and Rescue
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Molecular Basis of the Anticancer and Antibacterial Properties of CecropinXJ Peptide: An In Silico Study

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(2), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22020691
by Francisco Ramos-Martín * and Nicola D’Amelio *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(2), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22020691
Submission received: 16 December 2020 / Revised: 6 January 2021 / Accepted: 7 January 2021 / Published: 12 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Peptides for Health Benefits 2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes the action mechanism studies of antimicrobial and anticancer peptide Cecropin XJ by MD simulation and sequence-property alignment. The methods used and the results are solid and interesting, in particular, analysis of the peptide interaction with various types of biomembranes well supported the biological character of this peptide. The results reported in this paper would pave the way to more development and future progress of this therapeutically important and useful peptide. Accordingly, this paper deserves to be published in this journal.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors present the manuscript entitled "Molecular basis of the anticancer and antibacterial properties of CecropinXJ peptide. This paper if very interesting, also much work was done to provide such information. Nevertheless, some minor corrections need to be provided before this paper is published.

  1. In my opinion, the title of the manuscript is somehow confusing and neet to be changed a bit. The entire work presented in the manuscript is based on in-silico studies, and is an assumption rather than evidence. Therefore such information should be provided. Otherwise, the reader will search in vain for the results of in vitro tests that support the title indicated.
  2. Please provide the definition for abbreviations used in the subtitle 2.3
  3. In the subtitle 2.1 the Authors written that "two helices can be distinguished ...by the AGPA..." Then the Authors divide the sequence into two helices- Helix I (1-21), and Helix II (25-37). However, 25 residue is for Alanine which is situated in the AGPA motif. Thus, Helix II should be 26-37, no?
  4. On what basis did the Authors choose the ratios of bacteria phospholipids? Was the selection made according to any specific algorithm (pH, water content, etc?) or maybe on the basis of the literature data?
  5. In line to this, is it possible that the environmental factors due to which the bacteria changes its phospholipid ratio, may directly affect the interactions between the drug and the bacteria, and thus the mechanism of drug activity?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop