Next Article in Journal
Clay Minerals as Bioink Ingredients for 3D Printing and 3D Bioprinting: Application in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Next Article in Special Issue
Silk Fibroin Microneedle Patches for the Treatment of Insomnia
Previous Article in Journal
Disposition of Cefquinome in Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) Following Intravenous and Intramuscular Administration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ultrasound and Microbubbles for the Treatment of Ocular Diseases: From Preclinical Research towards Clinical Application
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Transdermal Delivery of Macromolecules Using Two-in-One Nanocomposite Device for Skin Electroporation

by Juliette Simon 1,2, Bastien Jouanmiqueou 1, Marie-Pierre Rols 1, Emmanuel Flahaut 2,* and Muriel Golzio 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 29 September 2021 / Revised: 22 October 2021 / Accepted: 23 October 2021 / Published: 28 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Physics Methods for Drug Delivery)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have shown systematic studies of electroporation-induced skin permeabilization with different molecules with varied size and charge. The experiments are well designed, and the data are quite clear to show the delivery efficacy. Therefore, I recommend this for publication. One question is what happens if you change the intensity of the electrical input, how would this further impact the penetration of the cargo?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript focused on the validation of permeabilization of the skin studies.  In general, the work is well written and clear. This topic is more than suitable for Pharmaceutics. However, several aspects should be checked before publication: 

  • Line 30-31 I agree that, at specific situation, transdermal delivery is a good alternative. However, it seems that its is for everything. I suggest changing or deleting this sentence.
  • Methods: Mice strain, weight, age...should be included.
  • Figure 1A and Figure 2A: Have both images the same intensity/brightness? If not, please adjust  (e.g using Image J)
  • I suggest including information about the developed nanoplatforms, at least as supplementary material
  • In my opinion the objective it is not so clear. I suggest rewriting that part

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop