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.
Dear Dr. Nie,
Your manuscript is now deemed acceptable by peerJ
Thanks
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jun Chen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have incorporated the suggestions, hence the manuscript can now be accepted.
Dear Dr. Nie,
The manuscript has been reviewed by four reviewers and they feel that this needs to be revised considerably. All the reviewers feel that there are some changes that could make the manuscript strong. Especially, Reviewer 2 has suggested a correlation plot between miR-708-5p and GTFF2 using the TCGA database to support your results. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is a manuscript by Nie et al that elucidates a new strategy for lung cancer marker screening by integrating microRNA expression, regulation networks and signal pathways. The authors find miR-708-5p as a biomarker. This manuscript is a step forward in the framing of policies for lung cancer diagnosis. It is written in a very simple and easy to follow manner. The conclusions are supported by the analysis. This manuscript can be accepted as is at PeerJ- a few minor comments
1) Please include study limitations in the discussion
2) The figure legends should be expanded
3) Please check for grammar
The authors have constructed a human miRNA-mRNA regulatory network and have found that miR-708-5p independently regulates the hub gene GTF2F2 in non-small cell lung cancer. Gene Ontology analysis and KEGG pathway analysis were used to identify genes involved in cancer-related pathways.
TCGA database, GEO database, volcano plot and signal-to-noise ratio methods were used to obtain significant differentially expressed (SDE) miRNAs. Interestingly, they have found that GTF2F2 binds to polymerase II, which in turn regulates the transcription promoting tumor growth.
The authors have claimed that miR-708-5p could be used as a potential biomarker and its oncogenic role has already been proved experimentally in the previous literature studies. The mechanism of action reported by them is quite novel
No comment
No comment
Although, the mRNA expression of miR-708-5p and GTF2F2 are upregulated in NSCLC, can authors show a correlation plot between miR-708-5p and GTFF2 using the TCGA database.
The language of the manuscript is clear and concise. Images presented are good quality and the manuscript is well-structured.
The hypothesis laid down by the authors for the identification of miRNA to be used a lung cancer marker based on downstream targets and pathways is reasonable. The datasets identified are rigorous and methods have been described well.
The conclusion derived from the findings does not take into account all the findings.
A documents with figure legends should have been provided with the submission.
No comment
no comment
no comment
Just as a minor comment, it would have been nice if the authors could add a schematic diagram of the mechanism through which miR-708-5p plays role in lung carcinogenesis.
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.