Study of a Hydrophilic Healing-Promoting Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: 1698518

Study on the Hydrophilicity and Biocompatibility of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Crosslinked by Oxidized Sodium Hyaluronate

Comments

In this work, the authors formulated a modified material of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Crosslinked by Oxidized Sodium Hyaluronate to increase its wound healing efficiency by increasing the hydrophilicity and biocompatibility through oxidation of SH before crosslinking with pADM. The microstructure, hydrophilicity, moisture retention, degradation, and cytotoxicity of material OSH-pADM were investigated. The obtained results were well interpreted. With the increase of oxidation degree, the surface hydrophilicity and moisture retention capacity of OSH-pADM increased. The healing performance is found significant. However, before the publication of the manuscript some technical corrections are required.

1. The title of the manuscript does not properly reflect the key findings of the work. Better to modify it.
2. In section 2.2 on page 3, the statement mole ratio for sodium iodate is stated but the numerical values of percent composition are mentioned. Modify it to be consistent in statement and values.
3. In section 2.8 term “characteristic” should be replaced by “characterized”.
4. Section 2.9, the second sentence starting with “reference method” is incomplete. Better to rewrite in a correct sentence form.
5. Carefully revisit the space between values and units and be consistent with ml or mL.
6. The FTIR spectra in Fig-1 look the same for all compositions exhibiting not any significant evidence of successful cross-linking. Take support of any other experimental technique to justify the effective cross-linking.
7. In section 3.2 the last line is correct pAMD to pADM.
8. In section 3.3 the first sentence is too long and confusing. Better to split it into simple and understandable sentences.
9. The cytotoxicity of OSH-pADM is relatively high than that of pADM. Does it not reduce the biocompatibility and healing significance of the material?

 

A minor revision is required following the above comments to meet the quality of publication in Processes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for authors presenting their great work. The objective of this work is clear, and the samples have been comprehensively characterized. 

Here are my comments of the current version:

1. Introduction – the 2^nd paragraph (Page 2)

“SH has special moisturizing effect and is currently recognized as the most powerful natural moisturizing agent with water retention ability.”

SH was introduced here as “the most powerful natural moisturizing agent”. Please add references to support “the most”.

2. Experiments and Methods

This section needs to be revised. More information needs to be provided. Here are some details:

2.1 Materials (Page 2)

Please provide more information such as product full names, grades, etc., of at least pADM and SH.

2.2 pADM treatment (Page 3)

“1g of pADM was immersed into the buffer solution at pH 9.4”

Please indicate the type/name of the buffer solution.

“12h at 37℃.”

What is this 12h at 37°C for? Please revise the sentences to make it clear.

2.5 XRD

Please provide more details about the parameters such as radiation voltage and current, scan range, steps, and rate, etc..

2.8. In vitro enzymatic degradation

Please give the full name of PBS when the first time this abbreviation was used in this manuscript.

As it was mentioned here that samples were collected at the days of 1, 2, 4, 7, why the data shown in the degradation rate % plot (Figure 8) is for days of 1, 3, and 5? Please give explanation about this.

About this degradation rate % characterization method, there could be some lost during the post-degradation sample preparation. During enzyme degradation, are there debris produced due to the structure collapse? If yes, how these debris be collected rather than washed away during rinsing? After lyophilizing, the sample could become more brittle and produce debris. Are there steps to avoid sample lost? This type of sample is normally very light, especially under dehydrated condition. How is the weight of the sample compared to the measuring limitation of the scale being used? Also, what is the sample size? Please provide details.

2.11. In vitro evaluation

In this section, it was mentioned that “Then, the scaffolds were soaked in 9.3 ml cell culture medium for 24 hours to obtain the extracts.”. In Figure 13, OD data was presented for 1, 3, 5 days of cell culturing. Please add details to the method to match the data.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 3.

Please re-label scale bars of these SEM images. Based on the current resolution, it is hard to read the scale bars. Why the scale bar of figure E looks different from all the others?

Figure 12

Please replace the current images with the ones of higher resolution. The letters of the current plots are hard to read.

3.10. In vivo evaluation

As there are 4 experimental groups with differently oxidized SH, please indicate that which of them is used here for the in vivo evaluation.

Figure 15, 16

Please add scale bars.

Figure 15

Please add some labels (such as arrows) to indicate where readers should focus on in the image to see the thicker fibers in the experimental groups.

Figure 16

Please add descriptions about Figure 16 rather than just simply say “Based on the results of Fig.14, 15 and 16, it can be concluded that OSH-pADM could promote wound healing.”

4. Reference

The Reference list is quite massy in the current version. Please re-organize.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1- 2.2 pADM treatment:

Please revise the added sentence "...and OSH10%, OSH20%, OSH40%, and OSH60% 5% by mass fraction of pADM was added , respectively." to make it understandable and make sense.

2- 2.8. In vitro enzymatic degradation

"...then soaked in collagenase type I/Phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solution (5 U/mL, 3 mL/mg sample)" 

The 5 U/ml is the concentration of collagenase. What is the "3 mL/mg sample"? Does it mean that 3 mL of the collagenase/PBS solution was used for degrading every microgram of the matrix sample? If yes, please revise the sentence to make it more clear to readers.

3- 2.9. Hydrophilicity test

The equation (3) for Capillary water absorption rate (%) calculation: It looks like the W3 has never been defined in this manuscript but was only shown in this equation. Please define W3.

4- 3.3 XRD analysis

"It can be seen that, after crosslinking, the width of the peak becomes wider, ..."

Please present the peak width values to convince readers that the peak becomes wider after crosslink.

5- Please go through all the sentences and correct the typos and grammar mistakes. Too many grammar problems. Almost no improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx