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. Liu,
We are delighted to accept your manuscript, entitled "Advances in the study of aerobic glycolytic effects in resistance to radiotherapy in malignant tumors," for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for choosing to publish your interesting work with us.
With kind regards,
Abhishek Tyagi
Academic Editor, PeerJ
[# 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 incorporated my suggestions and I am satisfied with the reviewed article.
Dear Dr. Wang,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Advances in the study of aerobic glycolytic effects in resistance to radiotherapy in malignant tumors" to PeerJ. We have now sufficiently received reports from reviewers who find the study interesting and clinically relevant. Therefore, after careful consideration, we have decided to invite a major revision of the manuscript.
As you will see from the reports copied below, the reviewers raise important concerns regarding the statements' composition and presentation. Therefore, we ask you to address all of the reviewers' comments. Without substantial revisions, we will be unlikely to send the paper back for review. Also, seek professional assistance from an English editing service
Important:
If you feel that you are able to comprehensively address the reviewers’ concerns, please provide a point-by-point response to these comments along with your revision. Please show all changes in the manuscript text file with track changes or color highlighting. If you are unable to address specific reviewer requests or find any points invalid, please explain why in the point-by-point response.
Best regards,
Abhishek Tyagi, PhD
Academic Editor,
PeerJ
[# 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 Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The review "Advances in the study of aerobic glycolytic effects in resistance to radiotherapy in malignant tumors" is within the scope of the journal with an adequate introduction to the subject.
Please check minor grammatical errors in lines 89 and 189. Use the full form for Gy in line 191. Line 92 - use small case for reference.
no comment
no comment
General comments:
This review titled “Advances in the study of aerobic glycolytic effects in resistance to radiotherapy in malignant tumors” seeks to provide the latest update on a potential mechanism that may contribute to the resistance of cancer cells to radiation. In this endeavor, the authors focused on the impact of aerobic glycolysis, a metabolic shift characteristic of tumors, and its sequelae, vis a vis increased extracellular acidification and increased MCT transporters as likely contributors to the resistance to radiotherapy (RT). The review is timely, considering the increased resistance to RT in some malignancies. Therefore, the topic has significant clinical implications in that a better understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms to RT resistance could portend important steps toward the improvement of RT in managing certain subtypes of cancer patients. The main drawback of this work is the composition and presentation. These issues could be alleviated with assistance from a professional English editing service. This will ensure a wider readership and appreciation of the work. Some specific examples of areas that are incomprehensible or contain tortuous sentences are provided below. These are some examples; the onus is on the authors to winnow out grammatically flawed phrases/sentences and fine tune their work. One recommendation is for the authors to seek professional assistance from an English editing service. A certificate of authentication for the professional assistance must accompany the resubmission of the manuscript.
A figure, an illustrative summary that captures the key features and essence of the review topic should be provided in the revised manuscript, if the opportunity to submit a revision is accorded.
Specific comments:
Abstract
If possible, avoid using the phrase “glycolysis process”. It is either glycolytic process or glycolysis. This correction should be made in the rest of the manuscript. Lines 25-30 “This review collects recent studies…to improve the disease control rate of radiation therapy…of cancer patients” is a long sentence that is tough to decipher. Consider revising by splitting into 2-3 simple sentences that are easy to comprehend.
Introduction
The authors like to use the phrase “distance metastasis”. However, this phrase seems redundant since metastasis is a spread from the original source. Is this an accurate assessment?
In the Introduction, the authors are urged to provide a brief paragraph describing the logical appearance of the subheadings discussed in the rest of the manuscript.
Differences in glucose metabolism between malignant and normal cells:
The description of the biochemistry in this section needs additional information for clarification. In addition, some aspects of the biochemical facts appear to be off the mark. Line 65 “…to generate another 32-34 ATP…for each glucose molecule…“ By implication, this statement indicates that additional ATP is generated, likely in glycolysis, before the large amount of ATP production by mitochondria. The authors must provide the gross total and the net total ATP produced in glycolysis and the generation of the reducing equivalent, NADH, necessary to facilitate glycolysis. Lines 67-71, the description for lactate production, is confusing. It is unclear whether the authors are referring to normal cells or cancer cells. Line 69, I believe it is lactic acid that dissociates to lactate and H+ and not lactate. If necessary, clarify this notion. Lines 72-73 “…high expressions of key enzymes of aerobic glycolysis…” Are these enzymes different from the enzymes that mediate glycolysis in normal cells? If this is the case, provide some examples of these “key” enzymes involved in lactate metabolism in cancer cells. Line 75 “bioequivalence” does not seem to be the right term here. Line 76, revise “…required for their synthesis…” to read, “…required for their growth…”
The role of enzymes and products of aerobic glycolysis in resistance to radiotherapy in malignant tumors
1. The role of lactate dehydrogenase in aerobic glycolysis in resistance to radiotherapy
It seems as the vast discussion here seems to be resistance to chemotherapy and not about radiotherapy. Consider revising to refocus the discussion to resistant to RT. Lines 90-91 seem repetitive. Since the discussion in this section includes discussing the role of cellular redox state, it is prudent that the authors avoid using “reduce” or “reduces” when describing a decrease in the quantity of something. Their use complicates the message being put forward, because reduce or reduction could also refer to the redox modulation of a molecule/compound. Lines 96-101 should be revised for clarity. Lines 106-112 is one long and unclear sentence. Please revise and simplify. Lines 115-120 should be completely revised for clarity of meaning. Even though radiotherapy is the subject in the title, it was only mentioned in the last couple of lines in this section.
2. Role of aerobic glycolysis product lactate in resistance to radiotherapy
Lines 130-133 should be revised. In its current form, it is unclear what the authors are trying to say. Lines 149-152 is totally incomprehensible. The same concern is true for lines 159-160.
3. Role of lactate transporter protein MCT in resistance to radiotherapy
Lines 167-169 must be revised for clarity of meaning. Lines 173-176 are equally incomprehensible, and should be revised. Lines 177-179 “Therefore, to meet energy requirements…available for hypoxic cells due to reduced consumption by aerobic cells…” Are these phenotypically two different types of tumor cells, or are they the same tumor, but at different location? This is not clear. Lines 181-184, the two sentences, “Tumor survival is dependent…Therefore, these two MCTS are potential…efficacy of radiotherapy…” should be moved to the beginning of the discussion in this subheading. These sentences sets the stage for the rest of the discussion in this section. Line 189, a new sentence cannot be opened with a small letter. This has occurred more than once in this manuscript. Lines 194-197 must be revised.
Conclusion:
It seems as there is some confusion in the discussion in lines 209-210 when discussing the ROS levels and radiotherapy. Earlier, the authors noted that the radiation causes damage to the cancer cells via DNA damage engendered by the emission of ROS. This concept is not espoused by the discussion in lines 209-210. I might be missing something here. Please clarify.
Not applicable
See item 1 above
All comments are in item 1.
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.