Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Applications of Nitrogen-Containing Heterocycles as Antiviral Agents
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibody–Ferrocene Conjugates as a Platform for Electro-Chemical Detection of Low-Density Lipoprotein
Previous Article in Journal
Antitumor Activity and Physicochemical Properties of New Thiosemicarbazide Derivative and Its Co(II), Ni(II), Cu(II), Zn(II) and Cd(II) Complexes
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

New PEPTIR-2.0 Peptide Designed for Use as Recognition Element in Electrochemical Biosensors with Improved Specificity towards E. coli O157:H7

by Jose Luis Ropero-Vega 1,*, Joshua Felipe Redondo-Ortega 1, Juliana Paola Rodríguez-Caicedo 1, Paola Rondón-Villarreal 2 and Johanna Marcela Flórez-Castillo 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 19 April 2022 / Accepted: 20 April 2022 / Published: 22 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Electrochemical Biosensors: Trends and Challenges)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

First, thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. In this cover letter. I have included my comments and suggestions

Manuscript Number: molecules-1685116

By modifying the sequence of PEPTIR-1.0, authors have derived a new peptide named PEPTIR-2.0. PEPTIR-1.0 was modified by replacing an aspartic acid residue with an alanine at position 6. By modifying this particular interaction, the number of interactions between the peptide and the Intimin increases and the free energy and constant dissociation values decrease. Authors also demonstrated that based on gold nanoparticles-modified screen-printed electrodes, PEPTIR-2.0 is used as a recognition element in electrochemical biosensors. In comparison with PEPTIR-1.0, it has a higher specificity for E.coli in an aqueous matrix.   

The conclusions are well supported by the results. Overall, the presentation of this paper is great. I would like to recommend the publication of this work in this journal after some issues are well modified or clarified.

  • There are many errors in English writing in manuscripts. Perhaps the author should proofread it.
  • Little has been studied about the electrode. It is recommended that the author characterizes and discusses the electode they prepare. It helps readers understand the condition more and repeat the experiments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an elegant study concerning a very important issue, the easy detection of E. coli O157:H7

The results support the conclusions and the importance of this issue is enormous. I really consider this a very important study that deserve to be published and I only have a very small comment on it:

Pag 4: Line 123 where it is written “In this work, the effect of the concentration of the peptides in…” I would have written “In this work, the effect of peptides concentration in…”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop