All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors properly performed the revision of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The revised manuscript has been improved significantly.
The authors have addressed my comments
The authors have addressed my comments
The authors have addressed my comments
Thanks for citing those two papers. Can you please include how your method differs from the below two papers in your introduction section( not just the rebuttal)
1) Integrated analysis of RNA-binding proteins in human colorectal cancer | World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
2) Frontiers | Molecular Characterization and Clinical Relevance of RNA Binding Proteins in Colorectal Cancer | Genetics (frontiersin.org)
It seems the paper replicates most of the methodology, results, figures from the following two papers:
1) Integrated analysis of RNA-binding proteins in human colorectal cancer | World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
2) Frontiers | Molecular Characterization and Clinical Relevance of RNA Binding Proteins in Colorectal Cancer | Genetics (frontiersin.org)
Before starting the revision, consider that you have to cite these papers AND explain how your research was conducted differently.
PeerJ asks for original research papers!
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
No comment
Line 109: Please briefly describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria
Please add the IHC method under the Method Section
What’s your clinical trial registry?
Line 374: The database provided the association in a cross-sectional manner, which does not show causality. So the RBPs are just showing diagnostic/prognostic functions. Further studies are warranted to determine their therapeutic effects.
The authors have identified multiple RBPs that are correlated with CRC progression. Is there any RBP or couple of RBPs you want to highlight?
The authors provided novel and extensive evidence showing that several RBPs are differentially expressed in CRC vs non-CRC tissues, and could be potential biomarkers of CRC progression. The study was well-designed and correctly translated.
This paper is well-organized with background material that can be improved. There can be several improvements that can be made to the manuscript to improve basic reporting and overall usefulness.
a) minor Grammar Issues
1) "shown that that" should be "shown that " on line 89
2) "are still poorly understand" on line 339 should be "are still poorly understood"
3) missing articles at some places throughout the paper.
b) Background context
1) "the role of RBPs in tumor development is relatively unknown" is pretty bold since there are multiple studies published over last few years
b) I think authors have skipped some background information about various studies done recently which studied the role of RBC's in CRC
Integrated analysis of RNA-binding proteins in human colorectal cancer | World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
c) Figures and tables
1) Authors should improve legibility of text and resolution in all figures except figure-4
2) Risk Score should be mathematically written
Experimental design
The article Fits well within the Aims and Scope of the journal.
1) Did the Authors perform some variable selection or regularization to reduce overfitting in the case of multivariate cox regression? Did they select a model just based on AIC criteria
2) Is there any rationale for selecting mentioned GSE studies as a similar methodology is used in different studies :
Integrated analysis of RNA-binding proteins in human colorectal cancer | World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
Frontiers | Molecular Characterization and Clinical Relevance of RNA Binding Proteins in Colorectal Cancer | Genetics (frontiersin.org)
No comments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.