Graphene-Binding Peptide in Fusion with SARS-CoV-2 Antigen for Electrochemical Immunosensor Construction
, Gustavo Martins 2, Cristian S. Pinto 3, Aldo J. G. Zarbin 3, Breno C. B. Beirão 4, Vanete Thomaz-Soccol 1, Márcio F. Bergamini 2, Luiz H. Marcolino-Junior 2,* and Carlos R. Soccol 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting, but a revision is necessary. My comments are the following:
1-Add more information to the introduction section about using peptides as elements of recognition in biosensing. Please, cite more examples that the authors have used these biomarkers
2-Please, add the functional groups to their respective values to the FTIR spectra.
3- Perform the SEM images for the electrodes without rGO.
4- Add a comparison table about the methods proposed for COVID-19 by using electrochemical sensors/biosensors with different forms (e.g., DNA Antibody/antigen, MIP, aptamers) to detect this disease to the Results and discussion section.
Author Response
Ms. Danna Dong
Section Managing Editor
Biosensors
Correspondence reference: biosensors-1955813
“Graphene-binding peptide in fusion with SARS-CoV-2 antigen for electrochemical immunosensor construction“
Dear Editor,
Please, as previously suggested, we are sending a rewritten/revised copy of the above-cited manuscript. We would like to acknowledge the referees for their insightful suggestions and comments. The answers and comments about the points picked up are listed in the attached file and all changes made in the manuscript were highlighted in the revised version. We now believe that the manuscript is appropriate, but if you think that any changes are needed, please contact us.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Luiz Humberto Marcolino-Junior
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper need some issues that need to be addressed
Abstract
Line 23. The authors should rewrite this sentence. The electrochemical characterization (EIS, CV, and DPV) is performed on the modified electrode not the suspension. Please verify this.
Line 29. Please check the superscript of the LOD value.
Introduction
Line 56. Reference
The authors should comment if there previous investigations, and also reference them, in which peptides binding graphene are used as immunosensors.
Materials and Methods
Line 99. Check the subscripts of disodium hydrogen potassium formula
Line 101. Check the superscripts of the YFV concentration
Line 129. Please check the superscripts for the wavenumber of the FTIR measurements. Also check the wavenumber range is it from 4000 cm-1 or 2000 cm-1? Please verify
Line 146. As the electrode was placed using very different temperatures and even in water saturated atmosphere; the authors should clarify if there is any special cover for the electrical contacts to avoid the electrode damage.
Line 156. The authors should clarify which concentration increased? Towards which analyte? AbS?. Please rewrite because is not clear.
Line 157. I suggest to change the concentration range from the lowest limit to the higher limit. It is a bit confusing.
Line 157. The voltametric measurements, are CV? or DPV measurements? Or both?. Please remark this in the paragraph.
Line 162. It is not clear what “final” concentrations means. Do the authors mean “fixed” concentration. Please, consider to change it.
Line 170. The real samples electrochemical measurements were performed using the same experimental conditions used previously? Please specify.
Results
Line 183. I understand SPE abbreviations refers to screen printed electrode, but this wasn’t specify in the text. Please verify.
Line 184, 185, 192 and 193. Please check the superscripts for the wavenumber of the FTIR measurements.
Line 195-197. Is there any evidence of this information on the literature?. The authors should confirm this data with the literature.
Line 205. Please consider to change the concentration range from the lowest to the highest concentration value. Also, it is not clear which concentration was used to evaluate the electrode suitability. Please verify.
Line 219. Please verify superscript of the AbS concentration
Line 229. Eliminate the space between K and
Line 239. Please consider to change the concentration range from the lowest to the highest concentration value.
Line 232. Please change follow for following
Line 243. The authors should clarify how there is a lack of linearity from 0.3 testing until 5 , and they are claiming a “good linear regression coefficient R2” (0.913). This information is not clear. The authors should consider repeat this experiment and obtained a better R2 maybe in another linear range.
It would be interesting if the authors can compare their results with others reported in the literature. There is a lack of comparison with previous studies.
Author Response
Ms. Danna Dong
Section Managing Editor
Biosensors
Correspondence reference: biosensors-1955813
“Graphene-binding peptide in fusion with SARS-CoV-2 antigen for electrochemical immunosensor construction“
Dear Editor,
Please, as previously suggested, we are sending a rewritten/revised copy of the above-cited manuscript. We would like to acknowledge the referees for their insightful suggestions and comments. The answers and comments about the points picked up are listed in the attached file and all changes made in the manuscript were highlighted in the revised version. We now believe that the manuscript is appropriate, but if you think that any changes are needed, please contact us.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Luiz Humberto Marcolino-Junior
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors revised the manuscript, which should be accepted in Biosensors.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for incorporate the suggested changes to the submitted manuscript
