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 thoroughly addressing the reviewers' comments, thus improving your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
the authors have addressed all the issues raised. now the manuscript is in perfect shape.
no comment
no comment
After modification, this version of manuscript has improved quality. It is suitable to get published at current version.
This article has clear and unambiguous language with sufficient references. The figures and tables are free from modification.
No comment right now.
No comment.
Your manuscript was considered interesting and valuable by the reviewers however they had a number of concerns that need to be addressed. One of the reviewers suggested that you provide more detail on your research methodology, specifically how many studies were included, the publication date range of these articles as well as providing a flowchart showing the number of studies retrieved at each step of your analysis. They also suggested that you rephrase the subheadings for sections 4.1 and 4.2, which seem contradictory. Additionally, with regard to these sections, it was suggested that you further discuss the conflict between findings that elevated activity of OXPHOS promotes HCC development and those that point to a decrease in OXPHOS activity promoting HCC development. The conclusions section of your review is phrased more as reporting of results and the reviewers’ suggested that instead you could focus on future directions in the field. Finally, one of the reviewers wanted you to consider the contribution of other cells in the tumor microenvironment, such as vascular epithelial cells.
Please, submit a detailed rebuttal which shows where and how you have taken all comments and suggestions into consideration. If you do not agree with some of the reviewers’ comments or suggestions, please explain why. Your rebuttal will be critical in making a final decision on your manuscript. Please, note also that your revised version may enter a new round of review by the same or by different reviewers. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that your manuscript will eventually be accepted.
no comment
the authors did an excellent job in compiling the review, the survey of literature using this methodology is decent. All the sourced are aptly cited across the manuscript.
In section 4 the authors discuss about effect of OXPHOS on HCC, where they write about both Decrease and Elevated OXPHOS promote development of HCC. It would be apt to discuss the conflict in these literature and may throw some light on it.
The conclusion section of the review is more like reporting for eg "Our results provide theoretical guidance for the metabolic study of HCC". we suggest the authors to discuss the information gathered across the literature surveyed and come up with future directions.
Over all this manuscript is very good and needs these minor corrections for reaching wider reader base.
no comment
Please explain how the article advances knowledge from the following published literature:
Feng, J., Li, J., Wu, L. et al. Emerging roles and the regulation of aerobic glycolysis in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 39, 126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-020-01629-4
n/a
n/a
n/a
The author of this article systematically clarifies the influence of the whole mitochondrial metabolic process on the occurrence and development of liver cancer by analyzing the changes in liver cancer.
This article conforms to the aim and scope of the journal.
This field is of interest to international audiences. This article is a good material as reviewing current evidence of mitochondrial metabolism to HCC.
This article has a clear structure.
However, there are two things I think may be needed to be discussed before publication,
1. The first point is about the research method of this article. This is a retrospective review, but the survey method is mentioned in the article. This method is similar to a systematic review.
1.1 However, after listing the system and the method of review, the author of this article did not further clarify some of the data obtained after the method, such as how many studies were included. I would suggest that the author use this method to search and list a flow chart to explain The number of documents retrieved at each step to improve the article structure
1.2 The method still lacks the time period of the article retrieval, etc.
1.3 The search terms are still lacking, only mitochondrial metabolism is used, some articles may be missed
2. Second, hepatocellular carcinoma is a complex microenvironment. The author of this article prefers to directly introduce mitochondrial metabolism for cancer cells, but lacks the exploration of other cells in the tumor microenvironment except tumor cells, such as immune cells, vascular epithelial cells, etc.
The conclusion is valid and novelty.
However, in section 4.1 and 4.2, the subheading seems contradictory. The authors might need to clarify this by pointing the mechnism in the subheanding.
Overall, I think this article needs to be modified before publication.
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.