cEpiderm, a Canine Skin Analog Suitable for In Vivo Testing Replacement
, João Nunes 2, Bárbara Ustymenko 1, LuÃsa Fialho 3, LuÃs Martins 3,4, Anthony J. Burke 5,6, Cesar Filho 7, Alexandre C. Craveiro 7, Ana R. Costa 1,8,9,*, Sandra Branco 3,4 and Célia M. Antunes 1,8,9,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the present study, Marques et al. develop a histotypical canine skin analog. The manuscript is very well written and presents the data clearly. The results are supported by appropriate and comprehensive experiments. In my opinion, the manuscript is appropriate for publication in Biosensors as is or with minor revisions.
Minor Revisions:
1. One things author can perhaps test is the effect of various physical parameters (Ionic strength, pH etc.) on the performance of the developed Skin analog.
2. Authors can test other irritants and corrosive agents to generalize the cEpiderm
as skin model.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors thank you for the thorough revision of our manuscript and for your comments and suggestions, helping us to improve our work.
Please find below the answers to your concerns and comments.
Comment 1. One things author can perhaps test is the effect of various physical parameters (Ionic strength, pH etc.) on the performance of the developed Skin analog.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this comment regarding this Skin analog’s response to the referred physical parameters; as regards pH suffice to say that some of the irritant and corrosive compounds used were acids of low pH values and our observation was that the cEpiderm responded well in the presence of these substances, or in other words to low pH values. In the future, the authors will follow the reviewer’s suggestion to further improve the characterization of cEpiderm.
Comment 2. Authors can test other irritants and corrosive agents to generalize the cEpiderm as skin model.
Answer: Indeed, this is an excellent suggestion, other irritants or corrosive substances can be tested using this Skin analog. This is one of its most relevant applications of the cEpiderm, the possibility of making it widely available and generalizing its use as a substitute for in vivo animal testing.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study topic is interesting and important. Overall, this report has good quality and the authors have provided some results to support the significance of this study. Reasonable revisions are needed before acceptance.
Comments and suggestions:
1, the reason for choosing/designing this study need to be explained more
2, the illustration figure about this study need to be improved
3, more figures/tables are suggested for this report if possibe
4, more background and refs about skin repiar therapy are suggested to be cited/discussed, such as: Journal of nanobiotechnology,2021, 19 (1), 1-12; Biomaterials Science,2021, 9 (5), 1530-1546; Chemical Engineering Journal,2020, 392, 123775
5, the language need to be double checked
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors thank you for the thorough revision of our manuscript and for your comments and suggestions, helping us to improve our work.
Please find below the answers to your concerns and comments.
Comment 1, the reason for choosing/designing this study need to be explained more
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark. The authors have supplied the requested information and justification for this study (see lines 73-82).
Comment 2, the illustration figure about this study need to be improved
Answer: The illustration figure has been improved. It now shows the development of the culture to confluence, followed by the differentiation phase.
