Next Article in Journal
The Factors Affecting Substance Use and the Most Effective Mental Health Interventions in Adolescents and Young Adults
Previous Article in Journal
‘Mind-Revealing’ Psychedelic States: Psychological Processes in Subjective Experiences That Drive Positive Change
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Acute Biodistribution Comparison of Fentanyl and Morphine

Psychoactives 2024, 3(4), 437-460; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives3040027
by Rosamond Goodson *, Justin Poklis, Harrison J. Elder, D. Matthew Walentiny, William Dewey and Matthew Halquist *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Psychoactives 2024, 3(4), 437-460; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychoactives3040027
Submission received: 31 July 2024 / Revised: 12 September 2024 / Accepted: 24 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. All my comments are in the attachment. I want to point out some things, the abstract is too long. The whole manuscript is too long. I understand that the authors worked a lot, but I suggest them to rewrite the article and include just the relevant data because the manuscript is very difficult to read. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented describes the quantified biodistribution of morphine and fentanyl in mice. Most interestingly, the concentrations used produce respiratory depression. The work is likely to be of interest to those working to address the current opioid epidemic. Prior to publication, the follwoing points should be addressed:

1. The chemical structure for morphine is incorrect and needs to be corrected. Morphine does not contain a seven member ring but rather a six membered ring.

2. Why is the structure of fentanyl protonated and morphine is not? The protonation state for both should be consistent since they contain the same functional group with the same pKa.

3. It is not clear why Tables 2, 3, and 5 do not have error calculations. It would seem more appropriate to provide some insight into the range of values observed.

4. It is this reviewer's opinion that the discussion is overly long compared to the experiments conducted. While the attempt to contextualize the results seen with other literature is valued, the authors are excessive. It is recommended that the discussion section be appropriately shortened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I understand that all the tissues from all groups were stored in the same manner but directly stored at -80 degrees without first immersing in liquid nitrogen can affect the assay. 

Back to TopTop