The Noscapine Saga: Unravelling a Valuable Jewel from a Poppy Pod—Past, Present and Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This current review paper overwhelmingly introduced the origin of Noscapine, the development of Noscapine's derivatives, the clinical use of Noscapine and the preclinical and clinical research of Noscapine, finally, the author discussed the future of Noscapine. The comprehensive introduction of Noscapine of the review is noticeable, but some important questions needed to be answered and omission required to be corrected.

1. The Figure 4 was copied from other published article. The authors have to indicate the original paper and make a reference in the figure legend and make sure the authors have obtained the permission from the figure's original  author. If there is no such notice, the Figure 4 would be consider as plagiarism.

2. The chemical structure of the analogs of Noscapine in Table 1 is too blur. The authors have to enlarge it and make a higher resolution picture in the table. 

3. There is lack of intracellular signaling mechanism cartoon picture for Noscapine. It will be much more clear to understand how Noscapine functions in antitussive, anti-cancer, PCOS and SARS-CoV-2 (in some of them Noscapine shares similar mechanism, but some of them showing distinct roles).

4. The manuscript will be more readable if the author can make a table/chart to compare the effect of Noscapine/derivatives in different cancers. The chart including the main findings, mechanism, if Noscapine's derivatives have superiority effect in inducing cancer cell death compared with Noscapine.

5. If Noscapine is approved by FDA or EMA as antitussive? If not, can the author discuss the reason for preventing Noscapine from being wildly used?

6. The reference No.23 is not relevant to the paragraph.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that this manuscript is mora a review tha an article. It is interesting in the way that shows the properties of noscapine, a product that is not well known.

The manuscript is too long and could be improved if some data were shown in tables.

The chemical structure of noscapine should be included

In the organization of the sections I think that there should be a differentiation between introducton, methods, and the rest of the sections, especially those devoted to the pharmacological effects.

Some of the titles of the sections are not informative. For example section 10, Noscapine's tapestry of beneficial manoeuvres.

Section 11 is related to possible antineoplasic effects but is separated of the rest of sections about the effects on different types of cancer.

I consider that Figure 4 is not necessary

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text should be reviewed as the quality of the English Language is not good.

For example line 57, the expression: Is actualy, over the course...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am OK with the revised version. No more comments from me. 
sincerely. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for the thorough reading of the manuscript and your inputs.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made important improvements following the suggestions and questions of the referees.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for the thorough reading of the manuscript and your inputs.

Best Regards