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.
Dear Dr Cheng
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript titled " Association of IGF-1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms with myopia in Chinese children”. You have adequately addressed the concerns of both reviewers and the manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Ziarih Hawi
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised version of manuscript has clear and understandable english.
Primary aim of the study is within the scope of the journal. Methods are described sufficiently in the revised manuscript.
Conclusions are well stated, which is linked to the original reach question.
Thank you authors for reviewing manuscript.
The concerns of the two reviewers should be clearly addressed before a final decision can be made on your manuscript.
English clear, introduction not described well, current literature not cited.
no comments
no comments
Cheng et al., found an association between IGF-1 and myopia in Chinese children.The authors showed association of myopia and SNP rs2162679 (G). The G allele of this mutation confers protection against myopia in chinese children.
1. Author should take into account sampling locations in china. Are these samples collected from single place or multiple place? If they are collected from different place, are there any difference?
2. Introduction should be elaborated with more citation. What is the role of IGF-1?
3. The authors checked LD between SNPs. It is earlier reported that rs2162679 plays a role in cancer, did authors check the correlation between cancer and myopia?
4. If the protective allele (G) is present, is that means that individual is protected from myopia? Or it is chances of getting myopia is less?
5. Additionally, if an individual born with allele G, but in later life it becomes A, does that mean that individual is at risk?
6. Method/Results section should be elaborated, not very clear.
7. Authors should provide human chromosomal location of IGF-1.
8. Did authors also check the ancestral form of SNP? Whether it is present in great apes, archaic genome?
1. The manuscript is mostly well-formatted according to the journal's guidelines. There are, however, minor errors: a) text is full width justify instead of left margin justify, b) In the reference section, some references do not have the full name of the journal, only the abbreviation.
2. The most significant results were obtained for SNP rs2162679. I think that in the discussion section it is worth to add information about its location in IGF-1 (intron/exon) and assessment of possible effects on the gene.
3. Line 153: In my opinion a nucleotide change (rs2162679) with such a high frequency (MAF = 0.374) cannot be called a mutation.
4. Line 29: I think that to describe this age group, the word "children" or "pupils" would be better than "students".
5. In line 59 there should be "locus on chromosome" insdead of "locus of the chromosome".
1. In my opinion, the description of some fragments of research methods is too general and does not allow a full assessment of the correctness of the used techniques. For example no reaction conditions and reagents for ligation detection reaction method were given.
2. The power of the sample size is not given.
3. The methods section stated that 5% of the samples were used in duplication. However, the results section is missing information on this topic.
no comment
A well and clearly written manuscript. However, I find missing in the discussion clearly emphasize why these results are relevant.
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.