Next Article in Journal
MMP24 as a Target of YAP Is a Potential Prognostic Factor in Cancer Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation Based on ECG Signals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Organs-On-Chip Models of the Female Reproductive System
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Recapitulating the Vasculature Using Organ-On-Chip Technology

Bioengineering 2020, 7(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering7010017
by Andreas M.A.O. Pollet 1,2 and Jaap M.J. den Toonder 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Bioengineering 2020, 7(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering7010017
Submission received: 20 January 2020 / Revised: 13 February 2020 / Accepted: 15 February 2020 / Published: 18 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organs-on-Chips)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an overview on vascular-on-chip technology. The manuscript is well written explaining the basic biological concepts and also the recent development of the lab-on chip technologies in the field. I have only two remarks:

-sections 4.1 to 4.5 describe the methods for fabrication while section 4.6 and 4.7 described the applications, maybe is better to separate in two different chapters

- the fabrication methods must be summarised in a table for a better understanding

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

              In this paper, the author summarizes the architecture of the vasculature, biological process during the vascular formation, then discusses the engineering approaches to reconstruct the blood vessel in vitro. Although the paper is well written, I suggest the author considers several points to be revised.

 

Comment 1.

              As the author discusses in the introduction, because the research field to reconstruct a vascular network has been quickly progressed in this decade, a number of review papers focused on the topic. For example, Biomaterials, 35, 7308 (2014), Lab Chip, 15, 4242 (2015), Lab Chip 18, 2686 (2018), etc.. Especially, the Biomaterials paper has a similar table of contents discussed in this manuscript. I suggest the author refers these previous reviews and discusses why the readers should check the author's review in the introduction (the progress within a few years or categorizing the technical merits?).

 

Comment 2.

              Some important papers are missing in the manuscript. For example, Microvascular Research, 71 185 (2006) for 4.1 section, Lab Chip, 13, 1489 (2013) for 4.6 and 4.7 sections and others. If possible, add these papers to the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop