Advances in Tumor Organoids for the Evaluation of Drugs: A Bibliographic Review
, Cristina Castro 2, Ana Cañas 3, Isabel Ortiz 1 and Marlon Osorio 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review seems interesting, but some concerns remain. Some sentences or descriptions should be added for the revision. Therefore, major revisions should be made before re-submission. The paper would be re-considered only when all the comments were responded to and reflected in a revised version.
The reviewer’ comments are below.
1.
What is the purpose of this review? I think it is new.
2.
Table 1
More many papers have been reported. The table is not indicated the overall research. The authors should add the research utilizing materials. The property or characteristics of each material should be described. In addition, other representative materials are noted, such as chitosan, gelatin, PLA, or PGA. In the current version, the review cannot be accepted. The table is not comprehensive.
I recommend the paper to be quoted.
To describe each material (review)
Review
Cancers 2020, 12(10), 2754
Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2010, 16, 351–359.
To add research papers
Chitosan
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.014
Gelatin
Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 2019, 25, 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0189
Silk
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 43, 36641–36651
3.
What is MEC？
The abbreviation should be clarified.
4. Figure 3
What is the message of this figure? This is well-known and not novel. The authors should describe the function or relationship with each cell in this figure.
Author Response
|
Comment |
Response |
|
1.What is the purpose of this review? I think it is new. |
The aim of the review links the description of the techniques and materials development of tumor organoids, emphasizing the physicochemical properties of materials to biomimicry tumor extracellular matrix, and an extensive bibliographic review to identify the tools used for the characterization and evaluation of correspondence with the systems they represent. Moreover, this paper relates the advantages of organoids compared to other models for drug evaluation are also presented, literature that we agree is new and is not reported as is presented here. A proper correction was done to the Abstract. |
|
2. (Table 1) More many papers have been reported. The table is not indicated the overall research. The authors should add the research utilizing materials. The property or characteristics of each material should be described. In addition, other representative materials are noted, such as chitosan, gelatin, PLA, or PGA. In the current version, the review cannot be accepted. The table is not comprehensive. |
Table 1 was supplemented and it specifies the main characteristics of each material.
|
|
I recommend the paper to be quoted. To describe each material (review): Review: Cancers 2020, 12(10), 2754, Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2010, 16, 351–359. To add research papers Chitosan:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.014, |
The paper was added to the references, thanks for the suggestion. |
|
3.What is MEC？The abbreviation should be clarified. |
It was a misspelling problem, it is ECM. The abbreviation was corrected |
|
4. (Figure 3) What is the message of this figure? This is well-known and not novel. The authors should describe the function or relationship with each cell in this figure. |
The description of each cell was added to the main document at the end of the section. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a good collection of data concerning the development of the organoids research area.
I have some a few comments:
The abstract should be reformulated for a better clarity.
It should be helpful to make a larger description spheroids versus organoids (and tumoroids) since the distinction is quite difficult to be done between these systems. A figure would help too.
Table 3 contains only a few examples of anticancer drugs tested in different types of patient-derived organoids. As the title announces, I would have expected many more examples.
Author Response
|
Comment |
Response |
|
The abstract should be reformulated for a better clarity. |
The abstract was corrected |
|
It should be helpful to make a larger description spheroids versus organoids (and tumoroids) since the distinction is quite difficult to be done between these systems. A figure would help too. |
The figure was done and included in the main text |
|
Table 3 contains only a few examples of anticancer drugs tested in different types of patient-derived organoids. As the title announces, I would have expected many more examples. |
The table was complemented. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript could be accepted.
