Title: Efficacy of extracorporeal immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comment
The authors have explored the immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg. The approach
and the concept (immunoadsorption the widely known) is interesting. However, this manuscript
is not up to the mark. Below are the comments :
1. In Materials and method section, no references were provided for antibody immobilization
protocol. For e.g.: How did you arrive at the agarose treatment with sodium periodiate for 2 h
in room temperature?
As you know, the protocols are followed by some research articles. So you should provide the
references.
2. Details of chemicals, analytical instruments was not listed in materials and methods section.
3. What is the reason to choose 6 different agarose beads? They all fall within the same particle
size.
4. A follow-up questions to above point. In R& D section you have shown the adsorption of
those 6 different agarose beads (Fig. 3). Can you explain why different beads showed different
adsorption capacities? Please provide an explanation in the manuscript. Can this be generalized
to other immunosorbents? Any previous studies with other immunosorbents?
5. How did you quantify the amount of immobilized antibody on the adsorbents? No details
provided.
6. This is related to Fig. 4. You have provided a statement “According to the result, an adsorbent
with an antibody concentration of around 4 mg/g is sufficient”. However, when we look at Fig.
4, 10 mg of antibody has resulted in another 5 % increase of analyte adsorption. This was not
discussed. My conclusion is: no clear discussion on your results.
7. “The non-specific adsorption efficiency of the immunosorbent was about 10%.” No discussion
on why this high non-specific adsorption and how to overcome this limitation if we want to
implement your immunosorbent column.
8. SEM images and the data look interesting. However, no scale or other details provided within
the image, which is required. Please follow the standard way when reporting them. Refer to
articles that display SEM images.
9.  A follow-up of above comment. Please do BET analysis of the samples, it will provide more
insights and provides solid proof for your discussion and the images you showed.
10. The manuscript should undergo thorough verification in terms of formatting, providing
details etc.
Title: Efficacy of extracorporeal immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comment
The authors have explored the immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg. The approach
and the concept (immunoadsorption the widely known) is interesting. However, this manuscript
is not up to the mark. Below are the comments :
1. In Materials and method section, no references were provided for antibody immobilization
protocol. For e.g.: How did you arrive at the agarose treatment with sodium periodiate for 2 h
in room temperature?
As you know, the protocols are followed by some research articles. So you should provide the
references.
2. Details of chemicals, analytical instruments was not listed in materials and methods section.
3. What is the reason to choose 6 different agarose beads? They all fall within the same particle
size.
4. A follow-up questions to above point. In R& D section you have shown the adsorption of
those 6 different agarose beads (Fig. 3). Can you explain why different beads showed different
adsorption capacities? Please provide an explanation in the manuscript. Can this be generalized
to other immunosorbents? Any previous studies with other immunosorbents?
5. How did you quantify the amount of immobilized antibody on the adsorbents? No details
provided.
6. This is related to Fig. 4. You have provided a statement “According to the result, an adsorbent
with an antibody concentration of around 4 mg/g is sufficient”. However, when we look at Fig.
4, 10 mg of antibody has resulted in another 5 % increase of analyte adsorption. This was not
discussed. My conclusion is: no clear discussion on your results.
7. “The non-specific adsorption efficiency of the immunosorbent was about 10%.” No discussion
on why this high non-specific adsorption and how to overcome this limitation if we want to
implement your immunosorbent column.
8. SEM images and the data look interesting. However, no scale or other details provided within
the image, which is required. Please follow the standard way when reporting them. Refer to
articles that display SEM images.
9.  A follow-up of above comment. Please do BET analysis of the samples, it will provide more
insights and provides solid proof for your discussion and the images you showed.
10. The manuscript should undergo thorough verification in terms of formatting, providing
details etc.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy of extracorporeal immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comment
The authors have explored the immunoadsorption therapy for removal of HBsAg. The approach
and the concept (immunoadsorption the widely known) is interesting. However, this manuscript
is not up to the mark. Below are the comments :
1. In Materials and method section, no references were provided for antibody immobilization
protocol. For e.g.: How did you arrive at the agarose treatment with sodium periodiate for 2 h
in room temperature?
As you know, the protocols are followed by some research articles. So you should provide the
references.
2. Details of chemicals, analytical instruments was not listed in materials and methods section.
3. What is the reason to choose 6 different agarose beads? They all fall within the same particle
size.
4. A follow-up questions to above point. In R& D section you have shown the adsorption of
those 6 different agarose beads (Fig. 3). Can you explain why different beads showed different
adsorption capacities? Please provide an explanation in the manuscript. Can this be generalized
to other immunosorbents? Any previous studies with other immunosorbents?
5. How did you quantify the amount of immobilized antibody on the adsorbents? No details
provided.
6. This is related to Fig. 4. You have provided a statement “According to the result, an adsorbent
with an antibody concentration of around 4 mg/g is sufficient”. However, when we look at Fig.
4, 10 mg of antibody has resulted in another 5 % increase of analyte adsorption. This was not
discussed. My conclusion is: no clear discussion on your results.
7. “The non-specific adsorption efficiency of the immunosorbent was about 10%.” No discussion
on why this high non-specific adsorption and how to overcome this limitation if we want to
implement your immunosorbent column.
8. SEM images and the data look interesting. However, no scale or other details provided within
the image, which is required. Please follow the standard way when reporting them. Refer to
articles that display SEM images.
9.  A follow-up of above comment. Please do BET analysis of the samples, it will provide more
insights and provides solid proof for your discussion and the images you showed.
10. The manuscript should undergo thorough verification in terms of formatting, providing
details etc.
assistant