Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 26th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 23rd, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 14th, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 28th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 28, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Dr. Tokcaer Keskin,

Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.

I am writing to inform you that your manuscript - Meta-analysis of commonly mutated genes in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis - has been Accepted for publication.

Congratulations!

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The authors edited the manuscript properly. However, details like fonts can still be improved.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

The authors have addressed my concrens and thus I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 23, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Dr. Tokcaer Keskin,

Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.

It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Meta-analysis of commonly mutated genes in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis - that it requires a number of Major Revisions.

With kind regards,
Abhishek Tyagi
Academic Editor
PeerJ Life & Environment

[# 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The authors aimed to identify commonly mutated genes in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (LMC) caused by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, and melanoma using an in-silico approach and their interactions using integrated bioinformatic approaches and tools in meta-analysis.

The authors found TP53, PTEN, PIK3CA, KMT2D, and IL7R are likely to have vital roles in LMC development.

The language used in this manuscript is clear, unambiguous and professional. Literature references and sufficient background are provided. However, if the author can provide more molecular biology background of TP53, PTEN, PIK3CA, KMT2D, and IL7R in the figures, it would be easier for the reader to understand.

It would be better if the authors can synchronize the font in different figures.

Some small mistakes are found in the manuscript.
Line 41 "in-slico" the authors may mean "in-silico"

Experimental design

The experiments were designed properly. The research questions were well-defined, relevant, and meaningful. The methods were also described in sufficient detail.

Validity of the findings

The authors pointed out the potential importance of TP53, PTEN, PIK3CA, KMT2D, and IL7R in LMC development and suggested more research should be done to explain the mechanism beyond.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript entitled ‘Meta-analysis of commonly mutated genes in
leptomeningeal carcinomatosis’ reports a meta-analysis identified the potential mutated genes including TP53, PTEN, PIK3CA, KMT2D, and IL7R, in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis originated from different tumor sites. The methods for study selection and data extraction are rigorous and clearly and thoroughly presented. Though the conclusions seem to be valuable, I am not fully convinced by some details in the manuscript (please refer to the comment under Validity of the findings).

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

Major comment: Instead of the mutated genes found and listed in this paper, the specific variant/mutation would be more interesting to report. For example, PIK3CA p.E545K is shared in Li Y et al. 2016 (breast cancer) and Ballester et al. 2018 (melanoma). Conventional EGFR mutations (T790M, 19 del, 20 ins, L858R) were reported across NSCLC patients. It would be nice if the authors commented on specific mutations, which would bring the key findings from the meta-analysis to the next level.

Additional comments

no comment

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.