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 authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. The manuscript is accepted.
[# 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 English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
This subject has been covered in previous articles, and it appears that some critical references have been omitted:
- Donald J. Vander Griend, Ivan V. Litvinov & John T. Isaacs (2007) Stabilizing Androgen Receptor in Mitosis Inhibits Prostate Cancer Proliferation, Cell Cycle, 6:6, 647-651,
DOI: 10.4161/cc.6.6.4028
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2021.03.010
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2021.01.034
There may be more, please do a thorough literature search.
No comment
No comment.
No comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
It requires a number of Major Revisions.
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
In this study, Li et al demonstrated that ORC1 is one of the hub androgen receptor-associated genes that promotes proliferation and stem-like properties of PCa cells. This manuscript is quite interesting. Overall, the English is good with little typos to be revised.
The study design is scientific and the data is sufficient to address the current concern.
Some problems need to be corrected before publication.
1.The paper requires editing for language clarity. There are many typing and grammatical mistakes, and the language structure needs to by optimized.
2.shRNA sequences of ORC1 need to be clarified.
3.What does “147 samples of GSE99795” in line 115 refer to?
4.The rationale for selecting ORC1 for further analysis is a little bit confusing. Do you mean that the silencing of ORC1 led to the greatest effect on suppressing cell growth? How many candidates were involved for knockdown assay?
5.shRNAs were used for ORC1 knockdown in the M&M section, however, in the results section, a siRNA is mentioned.
The manuscript entitled "An AR-based signature to predict prognosis and identification of ORC1 as a therapeutical target in prostate adenocarcinoma" is of interesting to the scientific community however, mostly because of not clear writing the manuscript is confusing, and some important information is lost.
no comment
no comment
1. There are several typos, grammatical errors, and confusing statements in places, which reduce the readability of the text. Meticulous editing is required.
2. Introduction, “According to……34,130 in 2021”, a regional scope for this statistic data is required.
3. Please give the definitions of all abbreviated terms at their first presence in the man text.
4. For animal experiments, more detailed information of animals is required. Such as body weight and provider.
5.“We were not blinded for animal experiment” in line 216, why?.
6. The formula for xenograft tumor size calculation needs to be clarified.
7. Were the mice treated with enzalutamide? If so, what’s the detailed treatment strategy?
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.