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 paper can be accepted in its present form based on the revisions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Few issues were missed during the revision as indicated by the reviewers. Please revise as per their feedback. Thanks
1、There are several mistakes in the paper, such as the missing of the method of 'TMT labeling' and missing of some spaces between words (line 105, 117, 124, 337, and etc).
The authors have responded to all my questions in these section.
1、Though the acetylation of SHMT2 and PGK1 were changed, Whether ACBP-Se affected the expressions or functions of SHMT2 and PGK1 in gastric cancer cells were not known.
The authors added some discussions between the kac of PGK1, SHMT2 and tumor progression.
1、Though the authors said that the languages had been improved by professional editing service, there were still some mistakes in the manuscript. For example, ‘in0.1%’ in line 124 should be ‘in 0.1%’ and ‘tumor igenicity’ in line 337 should be ‘tumorigenicity’.
2、The figures are still fragmented.
1、The authors showed that ACBP-se induced more abundant pan-kac in gastric cancer cells, these should be included in the 'results' section.
1、The authors did not confirm the results of LC-MS/MS by another experiments.
2、The discussion of the relationships between Kac and gastric cancer were added in the manuscript.
Please revise the manuscript and resubmit at the earliest.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1, In order to eliminate language mistakes and inaccuracies, the authors should ask for help by a professional editing service.
2, The structure of ‘results’ section was disorganized, and the author need to merge the figures and reorganize the structure of the article.
1, The gastric cancer cells were treated with 5mg/mL ACBP-se for 24h. The authors should explain the concentration selection.
2, The authors mentioned that ACBP and se were helpful in preclinical gastric cancer treatment, but whether ACBP-se could affect gastric cancer treatment seemed not known? The authors should at least make a simple verification in this article.
1, We hope that the authors examine whether ACBP-Se affect the expressions or functions of SHMT2 and PGK1 in gastric cancer cells.
1, Were there any relationships between the changes of acetylation and the phenotypic changes of the gastric cancer cells after the treatment of ACBP-se?
1、The English language should be improved by a fluent speaker.
2、The figures were too fragmented and should be merged.
3、The authors previously reported anticancer activity of peptide‑chelated selenium in vitro, but why authors chose lysine acetylation for the further study? There seemed no evidence that peptide‑chelated selenium treated gastric cancer cells were correlated with k-Ac？
4、The authors showed that SHMT2 K200 and PGK1 K97 are the most significant differentially expressed lysine-acetylation sites in ACBP-Se treated cells. But the data from LC-MS/MS could be false positives, could the authors prove it by WB (with custom antibodies?) or at least examin the total acetylation of the two proteins?
5、In this work, the authors report an acetylation-modified-proteomic analysis in gastric MKN-45 cells that were treated with ACBP-Se. Were lysine-acetylation or other PTMs correlated with the progression of gastric cancer? The authors should include these in the 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.