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.
Since both reviewers recommended minor revisions to your previous manuscript, I confirmed that you followed the reviewers' comments appropriately. Although I did not check the primer sequences' validity, I believe they are OK because you used Primer-BLAST.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Two experts have reviewed your manuscript. Please read their comments carefully and revise the manuscript accordingly; state the reason clearly when you think some of their comments are inappropriate.
1. Please make all fonts similar (“Times” - 12): Formulas have different fonts and formations. Please make them same.
2. Please proof the referencing of the affiliation of authors: You wrote “Qiang Lv12, Qingzhu Yang3, Hongsheng Chen12” however, it must be “Qiang Lv1,2, Qingzhu Yang3, Hongsheng Chen1,2” – Separate the number of references – Please rewrite it.
3. Please just mention the complete form of your abbreviations in the first place that can be read in your text and just write the abbreviation of those words in the following: For example, you mentioned the complete form of “COAD” in so many places in your manuscript. Just mention the complete form in Abstract and the first place you will encounter it in the rest of the manuscript. (For example: in Introduction in line 56 you mentioned complete form of COAD and you wrote it again in line 81. So just the first one is enough.)
4. Subheadings must be bold, followed by a period, and start a new paragraph e.g.: 1/ In the Abstract, please write your titles and followed by a period, For example: Backgrounds. or Methods. not Backgrounds: or Methods: 2/ Result in line 269 must be Results
5. Write paragraphs more coherently: For example, in the Introduction part, lines 77 and 78 (the location that you changed the paragraph), the topic had been suddenly changed to lncRNAs from COAD. I suggest that add some sentences to the previous paragraph to mention the role of lncRNAs in COAD in some papers and then talk about lncRNAs which can make your paragraphs more coherent.
6. Change the way of referencing Tables and Figures: Please check the journal requirements and proof the way of your reference in text to Tables and Figures: “Table” , “Fig.”
7. Different fonts and typo for some references: For example, in the Discussion section in line 453 the type of your reference has been changed and you wrote it superscript. Please make it like others.
8. “Acknowledgements” miswriting: Journal guideline: “Do not acknowledge funders here, there is a separate Funding Statement for that. Everyone named in the acknowledgments section must be informed that they are named.”
9. Write some sentences about your Figure 1 in Fig section: Please describe the Fig 1 under its title in figs part and make it more clear.
10. Typo issue in Figures description : For example, in description of Fig 3, you mentioned the reference of figures different in comparison with fig 2. Please make it all like fig 2. and reference the figure in the beginning of your sentence. (A. …. , B. …..).
1. Typo in reference to a method name “RT-qPCR”: In lines 41 and 42 you wrote qRT-PCR which is not common, and I think is wrong. So please change it to “RT-qPCR” which the complete form is “Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction”
2. Please change the name of the method to the right one and make it clear. (RT-qPCR): In the Methods section in line 205, you mentioned “Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR)”. This is not common. Based on your description, it is better to mention “two-step RT-qPCR”. Because you made cDNA separately and then used it for qPCR which makes it a two-step RT-qPCR or two-step Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
3. Please change the name of the method and make it clear. (Transfection): I suggest that change the title of the method in line 235 to the “RNA Transfection by Lipofectamine” which makes it more clear.
4. More information about the IC50: In Results section, in line 402 the “… Sensitivity to Targeted Therapy Drugs” section, Please mention the amount of IC50 before and after the test in your text to show the effect of your components quantitatively for drug sensitivity.
5.
The conclusion section is simple and short: Please write more detail and describe more about your results in this section.
1. Make an abbreviation section: I suggest dedicating a part of your manuscript to an abbreviation list. This will allow you to write all your abbreviations in one place, making your paper easier to read.
2. A suggestion about the last paragraph of the Discussion section: It is better to write this paragraph more optimistically and in a more positive way. For example, try to write like this: “For future research, it is better to focus more on migrasomes and checking more variable lncRNAs which can increase the valuation of this particle in future cancer research ….” . You can make it more positive with writing with this attitude.
1.In the Introduction section, the authors could further emphasize the novelty of this study and distinguish it from existing research, highlighting its potential value in clinical applications.
2.The annotations for the figures could be more detailed. For example, in Figure 1, the specific correlation mechanisms between MRGs and MRLs could be explained in greater detail.
3.In the Discussion section, the authors are advised to further explore the potential mechanisms of action for the four key lncRNAs identified in the model. The current discussion is not sufficiently in-depth. It is recommended that the authors analyze the reasons behind each result, rather than merely reiterating the viewpoints of existing studies. Additionally, there is no need to repeat the content that has already been described in the Methods and Results sections.
4.Please pay attention to the format of the references.
1.The study utilized data from the TCGA database. You may consider incorporating data from additional databases, such as the GO database, to enhance the validation of the findings.
2.Among the four genes ultimately included in the model, why did you only investigate the effects of the LCMT1-AS1 gene on tumor cell proliferation and migration in the basic experimental section?
3.The authors used patient samples in this study. It is recommended that you clearly specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection in the Methods section to ensure the reliability of the study results. This should also include the criteria for selecting the cell lines used.
4.You could further compare whether there are differences in the Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) scores between the high-risk and low-risk groups.
The model established by the authors shows promise, but its clinical applicability needs further clarification. In the Discussion section, you may further emphasize the novelty of the study and its potential for clinical application. Additionally, integrating the latest relevant research advancements to provide a more in-depth analysis of the study results would strengthen the manuscript.
Overall, the research is well-conceived and designed. It is recommended that the authors further revise and improve the manuscript. Supplementing the study with additional independent datasets for validation and conducting more in-depth mechanistic investigations would enhance the persuasiveness of the article.
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.