Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 29th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 25th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 16th, 2016 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 20th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations on this nice work.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

The authors adequately addressed my concerns/critiques and the manuscript is significantly improved.

·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

no

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please check the comments from the two reviewers and make necessary revisions as requested.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. Line 261, where are the Figure 2E and 2F?
2. Line 301, Table 2 is the table 3.
3. There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the text. For example, line 236 “Representative examplesof”, there was no blank between “examples” and “of”.

Experimental design

Original primary research is appropriate within scope of the journal.

Validity of the findings

1. In the line 238, the criterion for calculating the immunopositive rates is not consistent. According to Table 1, the total number of cancer samples is not 75, but 80; however, the denominator used for the calculation is 75. In addition, why did authors not considered ‘+’ as immunopositive staining?
2. In the line 250, authors determined the expression of RPS15 mRNA in several lung cancer cell lines, including H1299, A549, H1975, SK-MES-1, and H1688. Authors, however, only selected H1299 and A549 for subsequent studies; such as, in the Figure 2A, there was no expression level of H1975. Authors must provide the reason why they omitted H1975. Furthermore, why did authors choose H1299 in spite of its lowest level of expression?
3. Statistical analysis should be included in Figure 3A and 3B.
4. Authors consistently provided both H1299 and A549 data. So, if possible, please provide key factors of p53 signaling pathway in H1299 cell in Figure 4E, too.

Comments for the author

N/A

·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

The whole of manuscript was well written, and the study was well designed. However, some issues need to be clarified as follows:
1.In figure 1A, what's the purpose that they detected the expression of RPS15A in these cell lines ? It makes no sense in this manuscript.
2.In the Results, the authors mentioned that RPS15A is obviously expressed in lung cancer cell lines. The authors should compare the expression of RPS15A in lung cancer cells to normal lung cells, in order to suggest whether the RPS15A is overexpressed or underexpressed compared to normal cells. These information can be important in the further clinical application. 
3. In figure 3c, the quality of the colony formation assay is poor. No obvious colonies are showed, and they are not supposed to be concentrated in the central area.
4. The figure legends lack necessary details to fully understand the figures. A more comprehensive figure legends is needed.
5. There is typos and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript needs proofreading and polishing of the language.

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.