LONG CHAIN POLYMERIC CARBOHYDRATE DEPENDENT NANOCOMPOSITES IN TISSUE ENGINEERING
The use of nanomedicine has increased enormously, especially in the field of gene delivery and targeted drug delivery. The objective of current review to identify long-chain polymeric carbohydrate dependent nano-composites in tissue engineering such gellan gum incorporated TiO2 nanotubes, Poly(vinyl) alcohol-gellan gum-based nanofiber, cross-linked gellan/pva nanofibers, nanocellulose reinforced gellan-gum hydrogels, dextran and sol-gel derived bioactive glass-ceramic nanoparticles, aminated β-cyclodextrin-modified-carboxylated magnetic cobalt/nanocellulose composite, chitosan-chitin nanocrystal composite scaffolds, sodium alginate-xanthan gum-based nano-composite scaffolds, nano-hydroxyapatite pullulan/dextran polysaccharide composite, chitosan/carbon nanofibers scaffolds, nano-bio composite scaffold of chitosan–gelatin–alginate–hydroxyapatite, alginate/gelatin scaffolds with homogeneous nano apatite coating,nano-hydroxyapatite-alginate-gelatinmicrocapsule, poly(ε-caprolactone)/keratin nano fibrousmats, keratin nanoparticles-coating electrospun pva nanofiber, nano-hydroxyapatite/chitosan/chondroitin sulfate/hyaluronic acid and chitosan/chondroitin sulfate/nano-bioglass. The current review has identified a list of medicinal herbs that have been incorporated into long chain polymeric carbohydrate-based nano-composites.
Peer Review History:
Received 15 July 2020; Revised 13 August; Accepted 28 August, Available online 15 September 2020
UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.
Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.5/10
Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.0/10