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.
Thank you so much for your willingness to meet the journal's requirements.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for pointing us to the new repository. This must be updated in the manuscript. Additionally, all supplementary information, including the code repository, must be in English. We are unable to accept the manuscript in its present form without the code base being in English.
Hello,
Thank you for your revisions. We do not see any code at the Zenodo DOI linked in the paper, only raw data and figure jpg/tiff/png. Will you please provide the code and/or point to us where it is on that repo?
Thank you.
The author has addressed most of my suggestions, and I believe the current version can be considered for publication.
It is OK.
It is OK.
The author has addressed most of my suggestions, and I believe the current version can be considered for publication.
Given the concerns raised by the reviewers and myself after reviewing, this manuscript requires major revisions before it is suitable for acceptance. In addition to all of the points raised in the reviewer reports, we also wish to highlight several areas of concern that I want to elaborate on here:
-The text must be revisited for grammar, spelling and typos.
-The text must be revisited to make the meaning clear to readers. For example what are 'CAD tissues', etc.
-The figures are of poor resolution and therefore cannot be properly assessed.
-The methods are missing key details include package version numbers, accession dates, parameter, etc. for ALL analyses.
-The Discussion/Conclusions need to discuss limitations in depth, including that correlation does not mean causation as well as other critical factors.
-Data and code to reproduce the analyses must be made publicly available with DOIs (https://peerj.com/about/author-instructions/).
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The manuscript is well-written and easy to understand. The authors provide a clear justification for studying CD47 in COAD, highlighting its potential as a prognostic marker and therapeutic target. Anyway, I've tried to list some major and minor points for improvement:
- The introduction could benefit from an expanded discussion on how CD47 interacts with the tumor microenvironment, particularly in COAD. This would provide a deeper understanding of the hypotheses being tested.
- The objective of the study should be clearly presented at the end of the introduction.
- There seems to be a typo in the citation for Klimp et al. (2020) which is written as "Klimp et al., 20020." This must be corrected.
- Ensure that terminology is consistent throughout the manuscript. For example, COAD should be consistently referred to as "colon adenocarcinoma" or "COAD" without switching between terms.
Also, ensure that all abbreviation words are fully spelled out the first time they are used, such as "natural killer (NK) cell" and others.
- It is necessary that the authors go through the text very carefully and correct mistakes in the English language, grammar, and some typographical errors.
What are: 96 CAD samples? CAD tissue?
- Specify the criteria for the first-time diagnosis of colon cancer. For example, did it include histopathological confirmation?
- Provide more details of all tests analyzed and the statistical methods used.
- Ensure that all p-values are clearly defined and interpreted. For example, the statement "high CD47 expression had a risk ratio (HR) below 1.0, suggesting a favorable prognosis" should be accompanied by a clear explanation of why this is statistically and clinically significant, especially when it contradicts other findings.
- The ROC curve analysis mentions impressive sensitivity and specificity. Including the actual values for sensitivity and specificity alongside the AUC would provide a more complete picture.
- The prognostic analysis results mentions contradictory findings regarding CD47 expression and prognosis. A more in-depth discussion of potential reasons for these discrepancies, such as differences in patient cohorts or methodological approaches, would be valuable.
- In the discussion section, critically compare the study's findings with existing literature and explore potential molecular mechanisms in greater detail.
- Explicitly state the study's limitations and suggest specific future research directions.
- Emphasizing the translational potential of targeting CD47 in COAD treatment strategies would strengthen the impact of the conclusion.
OK
The selection of CD47 in COAD was not clear, and more evidence should be added to how to select the CD47 for further analysis. Moreover, some Figures were low-quality and must be revised totally. The some sub-Figures were not clear for readers, and directly downloaded from other website.
no comment
The single-cell analysis was confusing for readers, and the necessary should be added. And the single-cell provided unclear story.
The novelty of this study was so limited, and the association between this signature and colon cancer was not provided. Furthermore, most Figures were low-quality and not acceptable for further consideration. And the single-cell analysis was so confusing for readers.
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.