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.
I feel the authors have addressed the raised concerns adequately and the articles may be published soon.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
In particular, the Section Editor suggests that it would be clearer to readers if you were to change the first line of the Abstract from:
> Epidermal growth factor-like repeats and discoidin I-like domains 3 (EDIL3) is a secretory protein that ...
to (for example)
> EDIL3, which contains epidermal growth factor-like repeats and discoidin I-like domains, is a secretory protein that plays...
Although, both reviewers have suggested that the manuscript has been revised substantially as per the comments/concerns raised. However, in some figures, their labeling should be used with a bigger font for visibility.
IN addition, some editing is still required:
Line 42, "Recently, extracellular matrix proteins have been implicated in cancer ..."
Line 29, start new paragraph "Recently, the role of EDIL3 in ..."
Line 255, "EDIL3 expression was increased in various" - you should say that the expression was increased in some tumors (not all show an increase)
In the next sentence, you say that EDIL3 was increased in GC, but was it significant (doesn't look so)
Based on one reviewer and my own evaluation figure 6 and figure 9 are not readable in their current form. Therefore, it is advisable to replace the figure with a high-quality image.
In addition, the Section Editor notes that the manuscript needs editing for English and/or clarity.
For example, "Epidermal Growth Factor-like repeats and Discoidin I-Like Domains 3 (EDIL3) is a secretory protein that plays important roles in embryonic development and various illnesses." Do you mean "are secretory proteins", or do you mean "Secretory proteins with Epidermal Growth Factor-like repeats and Discoidin I-Like Domains 3 (EDIL3) play important roles . . . "
The remainder of the manuscript needs to be edited for similar kinds of problems.
[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). #]
please see additional comments
please see additional comments
please see additional comments
The authors had clarified the relationship between RNA-seq and Western-blot results. The manuscript had also been revised to fix grammar mistakes. The authors had also deleted two published images (from HPA database).
The quality of the figures had been improved, however, it is still impossible to read figure 6 and figure 9 in their current quality.
.
.
.
The author's have addressed all the comments raised before. Now this manuscript should be accepted.
Based on the reviewer's reports and my own evaluation article is worth publishing in the journal after minor revision.
[# 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. #]
The focus of this manuscript is to explore the role of EDIL3 in gastric cancer (GC). The authors utilized various bioinformatics resources and tools to evaluate different aspects of EDIL3 in GC, such as expression, methylation, prognostic value, etc. They also validated the in-silicon findings by in vitro experiments. Their study greatly advances the knowledge in the field. The manuscript is overall well-written. I only have a few suggestions for improvement.
1. The authors used qRT-PCR and western blot assay to validate the higher EDIL3 expression in GC than in normal tissues. 20 pairs of GC tumor tissues and adjacent non-neoplastic tissues were used, and the mRNA level of EDIL3 elevated in 13 of the tumor tissues. How many tumor tissues had an unregulated EDIL3 at the protein level? And did the 13 tumor tissues with elevated EDIL3 at mRNA level also have unregulated EDIL3 at the protein level?
2. The methods section lacks sufficient detail to replicate. Parameter used in various bioinformatics resources and tools should be provided.
1. For Fig. 1, why the two already published images (from HPA database) included here without proper references?
2. Figure7 and Figure 9 are not clear enough to allow the reader to receive any finding. Figure legends need to be more detailed. Scale bars are needed for Fig. 1G-H and Fig. 3D.
3. The manuscript needs to be proofread to remove grammar mistakes and ambiguous sentences. Some examples where the language could be improved include:
Lines 17-19: Epidermal Growth Factor-like repeats and Discoidin I-Like Domains 3 (EDIL3) is
a secretory protein that play important roles in embryonic development and various illnesses such as cancer.
Lines 55-57: Those studies indicated that the EDIL3 to be differentially expressed in different tumors and to play different functions in different types of tumor.
Line 58: Presently, the roles of EDIL3 in GC are remains largely elusive, and there are few studies on the function of EDIL3 in GC.
The article entitled ‘EDIL3 is a potential prognostic biomarker and 2 correlates with immune infiltrates in gastric cancer’ by Bin Ke et al., demonstrates the function of EDIL3 as an oncogene and suggests that EDIL3 may serve as a potential therapeutic target GC. Overall, the article is presented well, and the statement is validated with various experiments. The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor revisions.
1. Enlist discovered the function of EDIL3 in GC in lines 58-59.
2. If there are no limitations on words then please elaborate on the results section of various experiments, it appears that authors are a little shy to write the detail about the findings.
3. In the STRING relation network author has shown that expression of EDIL3 is directly associated with ITGAV, ITGB3, ITGB5, ZNF469, and PTK2. GEPIA. Although it is not recommended, if possible, the author may show the relationship between EDIL3 with any of the genes (ITGAV, ITGB3, ITGB5, ZNF469, and PTK2. GEPIA) with some wet lab techniques. Preferably at the mRNA expression level or cellular protein expression level.
.
.
.
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.