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.
Thanks for addressing all the revisions and corrections requested. Now your manuscript is accepted in PeerJ.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please provide a comprehensively revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter. Also, check the comments in the annotated PDF file attached.
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this interesting work, authors showed a prognostic role of protein GBP2 in PAAD via assessment of the public data and the samples from their center. However, few issues need to be considered.
1, In the Abstract part, the Conclusion of this study is missing, and after the Discussion part, authors described the conclusion only use one sentence. This is against common practice.
2, Since GBPs play an important role in host defense against virus infection and the co-expressed genes of GBP2 were mainly associated with immune response, is there any possibility that the development of pancreatic cancer is related to virus infection?
3, In the Figure 2D, high expression of GBP2 is correlated to poor prognosis of PAAD. The representative diagrams of IHC corresponding to high and low expression of GBP2 should be showed.
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 49, 170-174, 222, 252-254, the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult.
No comment
1. I congratulate the authors for their study design, analytical integration favors a comprehensive analysis of the research topic. If there is a weakness, it is in the conclusion (concerning the inconsistency that I have noted in point 2) that it should be
reviewed before Acceptance.
2. Your analysis of microarray and TCGA-PAAD datasets has shown consistent results (Fig. 1B & 1C). However, these results are not concordant with your experimental results (Fig. 1E). Please explain this inconsistency.
3. Your discussion needs more detail. I suggest that you increase explanation about the implication of the relationship between GBP-2 and the immune checkpoints to improve your discussion.
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.