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.
Your revised manuscript has been reviewed by one of the original reviewers and myself (unfortunately, the other original reviewer has declined this time). Both the accepted reviewer and I confirm that the revision has been appropriately done and thus I am happy to make the decision of its acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Keith Crandall, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
The manuscript was carefully revised according to my suggestion.
The manuscript was carefully revised according to my suggestion.
no comment
Your manuscript has been reviewed by two experts in the field. As you can see from their comments below, both of them raise several points for its further revision. Please read their comments carefully and revise the manuscript accordingly. Particularly, please note that both of them mention about the cut-off value for the CMTM6 expression.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
.
.
.
1.The authors mentioned IHC score in the Method section. Was this score used for the assessment of CMTM6 expression?
2.The authors classified low and high expression of CMTM6. How did you classify the CMTM6 expression? The authors should showed the cut-off value of CMTM6 expression in the method section.
3. The authors mentioned that CMTM6 is co-localizes with PD-L1 at the plasma membrane in the Discussion section. However, the authors did not show this phenomenon. The author should showed the merge of immunofluorescence image of CMTM6 and PD-L1.
4. In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that Recent research shows that CMTM6 displays132 specificity for PD-L1 and maintains its cell surface expression. CMTM6 depletion decreases PD-L1 without 133 compromising the cell surface expression of MHC class I and inhibits T cell activation and anti-tumor 134 responses in both in vitro and in vivo [15]. These sentences were already mentioned in the Introduction section. The authors should delete these sentences from the Discussion section.
5. In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that the low expression of CMTM6 also increased the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression. This sentence give misunderstanding that low CMTM6 expression increased PD-L1 expression. The author should revise this sentence without misunderstanding.
no comment
1. Standardization of the new immunohistochemical protocol is very critical. It is better to use widely used antibodies for immunohistochemical study. Previous studies using Novus Biologicals (NBP1-31183, United States) and Biolaboratories (ARG57681, Taiwan, China) antibodies should be cited and positive controls also added.
1. Gastric cancer is mainly classified according to Lauren classification. The author should add Lauren classification and perform comparative analysis with CMTM6 expression.
2. In table2, the TNM stage does not affect prognosis. However, in general, the TNM stage is the most important prognostic factor, and it is difficult to understand that TNM tages I and III do not differ in prognosis. Therefore, the authors need to describe what selection bias they had when collecting samples.
3. The author should describe when the patient was operated and when the sample was taken.
4. In lane 115, the author said that the cut-off level for CMTM6 expression was determined using X-tile software. It is necessary to describe in detail how the cutoff is determined by X-tile software and accurately describe the cutoff value. A detailed explanation in Figure 2A is also needed.
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.