A Review of the Application of Resorcinarenes and SBA-15 in Drug Delivery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your effort on this manuscript. But you need to revise some points as follows:

-You should add more precise words about the resorcinarenes and porous materials in drug delivery to the abstract for enhancing the reader's attention. It should be at least 150 words, your abstract is too short.

-You also add keywords between 3-5 words.

-In the introduction part, you don't have any references. Also, you have some typing errors e.g. lines 27, 28. There is no information related what are these chemicals (Calix[4]resorcinarenes, resorcinarenes, SBA-15)? You mentioned commercial presentations of drug delivery in line 31, but there is no example about it. You should expand this part with more brief examples and references.

-The figure's resolutions (especially Figure 2 and Figure 4)are very bad, you should revise them.

-In lines 125 and 126, 141-142 punto's are different.

-In the 4th part, you should add more references, especially from the last 5 years as research articles. Some references are only reviewed articles. 

-In the conclusion part, you didn't point out the significant advantages of these systems especially in drug delivery applications. Surface modification is exist in almost every nanomaterial, what else? In line 436, what are these good results? In line 437, who are many authors? You should cite them with their most important results. 

-Your reference number is slightly low according to a review. You should enhance them by at least 70-80 references and mostly updated ones.

 

Author Response

Good morning, first of all I thank you for the evaluation and recommendations given for the review. Then I answer point by point for your review, Please see the attachment
Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract is not good. Please rewrite it.
2. The quality of figure 2 is not good. Please improve it.
3. There are some typo and grammatical mistakes in the text which should be corrected.
4. Please introduce all the abbreviations at the first time usage.
5. You didn't write any outlooks in section 5. Please write it.
6. You need to improve the quality of the mentioned samples, as well. Please rewrite them in a better manner.

Author Response

Good morning, first of all we want to thank you for the evaluation and recommendations given for the review. Then I answer point by point for your review, Please see the attachment
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Galindres et al. review synthesis and application of resorcinarenes and poros SBA-15 in drug delivery. The report is organized by the introduction of synthesis methods followed by exampled application of each of them. This is an interesting manuscript, on some points a bit too general, owing to the huge field of drug delivery. It is likely to appeal to a board readership with an interest in the field of drug delivery utilizing macromolecules. At some points, the review could be more clearly structured and need substantial improvement. The main issues are the clarity of the provided information and the logical flow of the provided information.

1. In section 3 and section 4, it’s difficult to follow the logical flow. The authors may provide a table summarizing formulation therapeutic agents, drug cargoes, diseases targeted, in vitro or in vivo results, etc for a clearer illustration.
2. Readers may benefit from a brief discussion of related therapies approved for clinical use or in clinical testing so that approaches and their relative likelihood of translation could be prioritized by the audience of this work.
3. For completeness, an essential section missing in this article is the discussion regarding biocompatibility, circulation time, and potential toxicity of resorcinarenes and SBA-15 as drug carriers. Several questions to consider:

-  How can the target specificity of the nanocarriers be reached?

-  How can an effective dose on the target site be guaranteed and toxicity be avoided?

-  How can side effects on other cells be excluded?

-  Could the material of the nanocarriers become toxic in a certain concentration?

4. To allow readers to build upon the impressive work discussed here, the authors might consider expounding upon delivery system design of different applications and mechanisms of drug release in greater detail as the biology is interesting and it would highlight unmet therapeutic needs that they or others might address.
5. Regarding insulin delivery, authors gave a nice rationale statement, it’s better to have the similar, brief background/significance mention for other cargoes discussed.
6. The authors may consider consolidating figures 1-4 and adding additional relevant figure(s) in order to enhance reader engagement, especially in section 3 and section 4.
7. It would be beneficial to cite more papers in each application. Also, a brief mention and direction to relevant review articles would also benefit readers.
8. It’s confusing that this manuscript didn’t compare any aspects between resorcinarenes and SBA-15 as the title indicated. Also, rationale/justification needs to be stated why specifically these two kinds of materials are compared.

Author Response

Good morning, first of all we want to thank you for the evaluation and recommendations given for the review. Then I answer point by point for your review, Please see the attachment
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Correction of the bibliography in the text - use of square brackets

Author Response

Good morning, first of all we want to thank you for the evaluation and recommendations given for the review. Then I answer point by point for your review, Please see the attachment.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your updates. I only couldn't see Figure 4 as you said. Also, there are some mispelling problems. Please check them.

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your evaluation and comments, please see the attachment
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As my opinion, the authors do all the comments and I accept the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your evaluation and comments to accept the publication.

According to your comment, the manuscript was submitted to an English review process with the support of the University of America publishing team.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

I agree to publish in current present form.

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your evaluation and comments to accept the publication.

Best regards