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.
After revisions, two reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All micrographs should be marked with scale.
When you resubmit, please provide raw flow cytometry data in CSV format, together with precise information on instrument parameters, gating parameters, and mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) histograms for FACS.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The authors answered our questions well and added the necessary experiments. It is acceptable.
no comment
no comment
The authors answered our questions well and added the necessary experiments.
The authors addressed my concerns and have improved their manuscript. I would recommend "Accept" this time.
No comment
No comment
Both reviewers give suggestions for modification. Please revise carefully and answer the reviewer's comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
no comment
no comments
no comment
The authors demonstrated that USP22 was highly expressed in osteosarcoma tissues and correlated with
30 poor prognosis in osteosarcoma patients. Moreover, the results showed that USP22 influenced osteosarcoma cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and invasion. The biological function of USP22 may be related with its role in modulation of glycolysis pathway, thereby promoting osteosarcoma progression. However, there are still some points need to be assessed.
1. Figure 6. The dimention in some panels in Figure 6 are unclear. It need to enlarge the characters in it.
2. Figure 10D, concerning western bloting data in Fig 10D, there is no evidence to show the USP22 depletion. It should be included in the results.
3. As for the relationship between USP22 and HK2, PKM2, and GLU1, How does USP22 regulate these proteins? The regulation of USP22 on these proteins is protein level or transcription level in a direct or indirect manner? It should at least mentioned in discussion section.
This is a work describing the role of USP22 in osteosarcoma (OS) progression. Both bioinformatics and experimental approaches were performed. Part of conclusions were similar to a previous work (PMID:27983930), which may affect the novelty of the present work.
Authors focused on the regulation of USP22 on the glycolysis of OS cells. More experiments should be performed, like Seahorse and Transcriptome Sequencing in OS cell lines to further demonstrate the relationship between USP22 and glycolysis in OS cells. Over-expression of USP22 in OS cells and corresponding functional assays should be added.
no comment
The name of OS cell line should be "Saos-2".
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.