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.
Thank you for addressing all the reviewers' concerns. Your manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Congratulations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have responded satisfactorily to my comment. Minor typos have also been addressed. I congratulate the authors on their work.
Dear Authors,
Your paper has now been evaluated by two reviewers that, although they found your paper with interest, feel that it needs major changes.
Please address all the points raised by the reviewers in your new version of the manuscript.
Thank you
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Overall, the manuscript writing is clear and easy to understand. Also, the results are concise. With regard to reporting, I listed a few comments to further improve manuscript readability as seen below:
Line 72-73: this part is trying to summarize the reported cases of DOG1 across multiple human organs and cancer types, yet it is a bit unclear what exactly are the organ-cancer pairs given the current wording.
Line 80: "From data derived from the TCGA database". Recommend a rewrite. Also in line 80, do "these authors" refer to Crottès et al?
Line 86-90: Recommend to split into 2-3 sentences for better readability.
To account for confounding variables in the analysis, it might be better to add other metadata such as sex, age, smoking status, and also include the correlation test p-value (with pancreatic cancer).
Overall a straightforward study. A suggestion regarding the evidence supporting key finding: more details are needed to support the key result that "DOG1 gene expression is unrelated to pancreatic cancer aggressiveness". E.g. What are the exact clinico-pathological parameters used for the correlation test? Is it catogorical variable or continuous variable? Is the Chi-squred test applicable to the data types?
Cancer genomics/transcriptomics, and biomarker identification for pancreatic cancer are important topics, and we welcome the work from the authors to contribute. There are some areas outlined above that could be improved for better manuscript quality.
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this manuscript, the authors highlight the association of DOG-1 with pancreatic adenocarcinoma but not it's aggressiveness. The primary method of analyzing DOG-1 is immunohistochemistry of microarray samples followed by statistical analysis. The article is written in clear English. Tables and one figure is clear. Literature references seem to be in order. I have few general comments/questions-
1. Why did the authors not skip the non-informative samples completely? If only 501 out of 599 were analyzable then why not skip them? If the authors wish to include this anyhow, it is not a good idea to include this information as an independent result, especially not the first one.
2. Proof-reading for typos will help the manuscript.
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.