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 for correcting the sequences for miR-107 in your manuscript, which is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for revising your manuscript in response to the concerns of the reviewers and for your further communication regarding the primers used in your study. I am satisfied that the comments of both reviewers have been satisfactorily addressed but ask that you revise your manuscript one last time to correct the sequences for miR-107.
-
-
-
**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.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is well written, with clear language, and effectively conveys the author’s intended meaning and observations. The literature review covers the background sufficiently and provides adequate justification for performing the study. All statements are correctly referenced, and the data provided is relevant to the study. The manuscript appears to have been prepared using the Peer J manuscript and, as such, conforms to the Peer J layout. The structure of the paper also conforms to the PeerJ standards. Figures and tables are of good quality. However, Figure 2 may be considered redundant as this data is supplied in Table 5. I would prefer that the figure be kept and annotated, and the table be removed. No raw data files have been supplied.
Original primary research within the Scope of the journal. The paper and its topic fall within the scope of PerJ. The aims of the study are clearly stated within the context of current knowledge on the expression of miR-107 and the lack of information regarding its prognostic value in ESCCC. The experiments are well designed and well executed, with enough information being provided to replicate the experiments. The exceptions are those experiments involving the cell lines that feel like they are only mentioned in passing. Throughout the entire paper, these feel like an afterthought that was included as experiments to increase the body of work. This should not be the case because they are valid, important experiments that provide important additional data. All work was done with technical and biological replicates and seems to have been performed to a high standard. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the affiliated university.
The impact of the findings has been assessed in relation to previously published studies, and novelty is not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. This study provides the basis for the use of miR107 as a prognostic biomarker in the clinical control and management of ESCC. However, no raw data files have been provided, so I cannot assess the data used in the study. The conclusion clearly states how the results answer the original research question. The limitations of the study are clearly stated, and the results clearly support the conclusions.
Overall, this is a well-designed, well-executed study, and the manuscript is well written. I only have three issues with the manuscript.
1. Figure 2 and Table 5 report the same results, and one can be removed. I suggest the values be added to the figure, and the table be removed.
2. The cell culture work is only mentioned in passing and is not properly integrated with the other experiments, despite these being important experiments that offered valuable insights.
3. The final point is that the study data comes from. Is there a specific reason that the authors are using relatively old data?
The paper is well written and clear.
Overall, the provided data are interesting and correctly presented.
Few points:
1) The introduction section should be enriched by adding more data about biomarkers for esophageal cancer
2) Comparison with similar studies is encouraged
3) The discussion is pretty synthetic. The achieved results should be put in the context of esophageal and gastric cancer. The prognostic factors available in this field should be commented on.
4) The conclusions should be rephrased considering the level of evidence obtained. This miRNA should be considered more as a promising future biomarker than a validated and ready for clincal use one.
The present work is original and well conducted.
The statistical methodology and the organization of the manuscript are fine.
1) The authors should provide more details about the dosage of the selected miRNA
The study is interesting in terms of the achieved results.
However, a comment about the future perspective of validation of these data by considering the addition of an external cohort must be added.
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.