PREreview of A Comparative Nanomechanical Study of Antibody and Nanobody Binding to SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Major issues

Abstract:

• Authors need to distinguish the principal computational findings from their potential therapeutic implications.

Methods:

• Authors needs to clarify the limitations of the simulation approach and how well it represents biological conditions.

Results and Interpretation:

• Authors should clearly distinguish computational observation from experimentally established biological conditions.

• Authors should acknowledge the need for independent experimental evidence before extending the findings to therapeutic performance.

Discussion:

• There's a need to reduce repetition and separate the study's findings from suggestions and recommendations for future studies.

• The discussion was lengthy and need to be concise, also need improved transitions for readability.

• The words “antibody” and “nanobody”, “binding affinity” and “mechanical stability” were not consistently used appropriately.

Minor issues

• Authors should ensure that visualization clearly identify the comparisons being made and define all abbreviations.

• The use of some tenses does not align with academic writing, authors should revisit that.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.