Multifunctional Biological Properties and Topical Film Forming Spray Base on Auricularia polytricha as a Natural Polysaccharide Containing Brown Agaricus bisporus Extract for Skin Hydration
, Pimporn Leelapornpisid 2, Ornchuma Naksuriya 3, Nutjeera Intasai 4 and Kanokwan Kiattisin 2,5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
The manuscript entitled “Multifunctional Biological Properties and Topical Film Forming Spray Base on Auricularia polytricha as a Natural Polysaccharide Containing Brown Agaricus bisporus Extract for Skin Hydration” reports the development of a film forming spray consisting of both natural and synthetic polymers that is intended for improving skin hydration.
Although the topic is interesting, the experimental protocol is not well described and the results are not discussed in sufficient detail.
Specific comments
Line 24 and 26. The meaning of the abbreviations AQP3, FLG and BE should be explained. The meaning of the abbreviations should be explained the first time are cited in the text.
Line 107. The source and manufacturer of anthrone should be reported in the materials section.
Line 121. What type of medium was used and removed? What were composition and volume of the added sample?
Line 123. Did the authors use pure DMSO?
Line 132. In what medium were the cells incubated?
Line 133 and 142. What were composition and volume of the added sample?
Line 144. Please, specify how freeze-thaw cycles were carried out.
Line 146. Please, explain how retinoic acid was used as positive control.
Line 150. It is unclear why the authors used a Human FLG ELISA Kit to determine AQP3. Please, explain.
Line 179. The experimental conditions used to determine viscosity should be reported.
Line 185. How was the formulation applied on the skin surface to measure drying time? Was the test performed in vivo? A brief description of the method is required to understand the methodology used and how it was modified.
Line 207. How was the formulation sprayed? What device did the authors use?
Line 231. The HPLC method used to determine ergothioneine and gallic acid content in the samples should be reported.
Line 234. The meaning of the sentence “The BE-FFS was performed to evaluate skin irritation using a standard 8-mm Scanpor® Fin chamber” is unclear. Please, rephrase.
Line 275. There is only a results section. Where is the discussion section?
Line 336. Protein measurement using Lowry’s method was not reported in the materials and methods section. Please, insert Lowry’s method in the materials and methods section.
Line 380. In the materials and methods section, the authors did not mention the evaluation of BE-FFS after spraying on the skin surface. Please, explain how this evaluation was performed.
Line 385. How did the authors determine the stickiness of the sample? Stickiness and viscosity are different parameters. Please, explain.
Line 390. The meaning of the sentence “The occlusive factor of BE-FFS was 17.67 ± 2.13% because the mixed polymers showed a suitable occlusive property to cover the skin surface” is unclear. How did the authors assess that the observed occlusion factor was suitable? Did the authors compare their occlusion data to results obtained by others who demonstrated the suitability of such values? Please, explain.
Line 399. In vitro skin permeation results should include other permeation parameters, such as active ingredient flux through the skin, permeability coefficient, and lag time. Please, insert such parameters.
Line 408 and 415. The word “on” should read “in”. Please, correct.
In Fig. 7 a) and b) the word “accumulative” should read “cumulative”. Please, correct.
English should be checked.
English should be checked. Moderate changes are required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your providing comments in reviewing our manuscript. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introductory part is well articulated and supported by recent bibliographical sources, and even the experimental model proposed by the authors is relevant to the investigation carried out, some minor points to clarify:
- Was sterilization carried out in the extraction process of the cloud ear mushroom water extract? Could there be bacteria or viruses present in the extract that were not considered?
- Has the effect of the extract never been tested on primary cultures of keratinocytes or fibroblasts, considering the direct use on the skin, proposed by the authors?
-Could it be considered to test the extracts on supports other than Strat-M® synthetic membrane, proposed by the authors, as Human Skin Equivalents?
-In Fig.5 it would be useful to indicate a colorimetric marker in order to make the predicted response surface plot diagram more easily readable.
- In the same triangle of response surface plot predicted, the notes inside are not readable as the image is low resolution.
- How long does the FFS remain stable?
-The text presents typos and further checking is necessary
The text presents typos and a further check of the English language is necessary
Author Response
Dear Reviewe,
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your providing comments in reviewing our manuscript. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors revised the manuscript properly.
Moderate editing is required.
