Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel long non-coding RNA XLOC_004787, is associated with
migration and promotes cancer cell proliferation by downregulating mir-203a-3p
in gastric cancer
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript focuses on XLOC_004787 in gastric
cancer. LncRNAs are increasingly gaining interest in the progression of different
cancers and therefore this study is potentially interesting. However, I have many
concerns about this work, as listed below. The language and grammar is first
thing. Inadequate Introduction, results and discussion is another. Finally, the
mechanism needs a few more experiments.
The manuscript needs language editing. Just looking at the first three statements
in Abstract, I find grammatical errors. For example, in the first statement of the
Abstract, authors should write 'long non-coding RNAs have' instead of 'long non-
coding RA has' - this is to imply that 'many' lncRNAs are now known. In the
second statement, 'most lncRNAs….is not' should be edited to 'most
lncRNAs….are not'. The third statement should be edited to make more sense -
for example, what do authors mean by 'not complete' - also, 'are' should be edited
to 'is'. Just reading the first three sentences and finding grammatical errors in
every sentence is not a great start. I am sure there would be numerous such
mistakes through out the manuscript. BUT I am not a language editor and I
would like the authors to very carefully proof read the entire manuscript and
correct all errors. Such errors are distracting !!
Please identify and name the cell lines in Abstract.
Introduction is poorly written. It needs to be completely re-written - to provide
better perspective of the problem. Such brief Introduction with not much
meaningful background information is not good. The first paragraph on Gastric
cancer is OK, although I would like authors to provide newer citations - I only
see 6-8 years old references there. The second paragraph is too brief and its
grammar needs improvement. In this paragraph on lncRNAs, provide more
details on what is known about lncRNAs in gastric cancer etc.
My first major concern is that authors have not provided any background or
justification for the focus on XLOC_004787. They need to explicitly discuss
why this lncRNA was chosen. Was it an unbiased approach ? If so, please
explain in detail (and provide details in terms of figures/tables) to make a case
for choosing this lncRNA.
The first section of Results is too brief. Why results from GES-1 are described
here when this cell line is not even mentioned in Methods? 
In the second section of Results, authors mention 26 pairs had higher lncRNA.
So, the results presented in Figure 2A are from 26 samples - if not, how do we
decipher from the presented bar graph that 26 out of 32 pairs had higher lncRNA
levels?
According to the Figure 2B, the lncRNA XLOC_004787 is expressed at lowest
rate in GES-1 cells. Why was this cell line used in Figure 1 for visualization and
cellular distribution of XLOC_004787? This does not make sense. Would the
observations differ if authors would have looked at XLOC_004787 in one of the
cell lines with better expression - authors should repeat experiment from Figure
1 in SGC7901 cells.
In Figures 4 and 5, authors look at various mechanisms. BUT I do not see any
mention of these in the Abstract, why ? Please ad this information to Abstract
along with results.
Another major concern I have is that the manuscript ends abruptly when authors
provide evidence for repression of miR-203a by XLOC_004787. Ideally, they
should have explored this further by finding a gene that is targeted by miR-203a.
However, at the very minimum, authors need to provide experimental evidence
that miR-203a can overcome silencing/overexpression of XLOC_004787,
particularly in terms of proliferation, EMT, wnt signaling etc.
The Results section in general needs more elaboration of results.
Discussion is also rather on the short side. Please consider expanding it.
Was this manuscript written 3-4 years back? I do not see any recent references?
The latest references cited are from 2019 !!
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Please refer to my detailed feedback above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Please address all of my concerns in a revised submission.
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel long non-coding RNA XLOC_004787, is associated with
migration and promotes cancer cell proliferation by downregulating mir-203a-3p
in gastric cancer
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript focuses on XLOC_004787 in gastric
cancer. LncRNAs are increasingly gaining interest in the progression of different
cancers and therefore this study is potentially interesting. However, I have many
concerns about this work, as listed below. The language and grammar is first
thing. Inadequate Introduction, results and discussion is another. Finally, the
mechanism needs a few more experiments.
The manuscript needs language editing. Just looking at the first three statements
in Abstract, I find grammatical errors. For example, in the first statement of the
Abstract, authors should write 'long non-coding RNAs have' instead of 'long non-
coding RA has' - this is to imply that 'many' lncRNAs are now known. In the
second statement, 'most lncRNAs….is not' should be edited to 'most
lncRNAs….are not'. The third statement should be edited to make more sense -
for example, what do authors mean by 'not complete' - also, 'are' should be edited
to 'is'. Just reading the first three sentences and finding grammatical errors in
every sentence is not a great start. I am sure there would be numerous such
mistakes through out the manuscript. BUT I am not a language editor and I
would like the authors to very carefully proof read the entire manuscript and
correct all errors. Such errors are distracting !!
Please identify and name the cell lines in Abstract.
Introduction is poorly written. It needs to be completely re-written - to provide
better perspective of the problem. Such brief Introduction with not much
meaningful background information is not good. The first paragraph on Gastric
cancer is OK, although I would like authors to provide newer citations - I only
see 6-8 years old references there. The second paragraph is too brief and its
grammar needs improvement. In this paragraph on lncRNAs, provide more
details on what is known about lncRNAs in gastric cancer etc.
My first major concern is that authors have not provided any background or
justification for the focus on XLOC_004787. They need to explicitly discuss
why this lncRNA was chosen. Was it an unbiased approach ? If so, please
explain in detail (and provide details in terms of figures/tables) to make a case
for choosing this lncRNA.
The first section of Results is too brief. Why results from GES-1 are described
here when this cell line is not even mentioned in Methods? 
In the second section of Results, authors mention 26 pairs had higher lncRNA.
So, the results presented in Figure 2A are from 26 samples - if not, how do we
decipher from the presented bar graph that 26 out of 32 pairs had higher lncRNA
levels?
According to the Figure 2B, the lncRNA XLOC_004787 is expressed at lowest
rate in GES-1 cells. Why was this cell line used in Figure 1 for visualization and
cellular distribution of XLOC_004787? This does not make sense. Would the
observations differ if authors would have looked at XLOC_004787 in one of the
cell lines with better expression - authors should repeat experiment from Figure
1 in SGC7901 cells.
In Figures 4 and 5, authors look at various mechanisms. BUT I do not see any
mention of these in the Abstract, why ? Please ad this information to Abstract
along with results.
Another major concern I have is that the manuscript ends abruptly when authors
provide evidence for repression of miR-203a by XLOC_004787. Ideally, they
should have explored this further by finding a gene that is targeted by miR-203a.
However, at the very minimum, authors need to provide experimental evidence
that miR-203a can overcome silencing/overexpression of XLOC_004787,
particularly in terms of proliferation, EMT, wnt signaling etc.
The Results section in general needs more elaboration of results.
Discussion is also rather on the short side. Please consider expanding it.
Was this manuscript written 3-4 years back? I do not see any recent references?
The latest references cited are from 2019 !!
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Please refer to my detailed feedback above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Please address all of my concerns in a revised submission.
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel long non-coding RNA XLOC_004787, is associated with
migration and promotes cancer cell proliferation by downregulating mir-203a-3p
in gastric cancer
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript focuses on XLOC_004787 in gastric
cancer. LncRNAs are increasingly gaining interest in the progression of different
cancers and therefore this study is potentially interesting. However, I have many
concerns about this work, as listed below. The language and grammar is first
thing. Inadequate Introduction, results and discussion is another. Finally, the
mechanism needs a few more experiments.
The manuscript needs language editing. Just looking at the first three statements
in Abstract, I find grammatical errors. For example, in the first statement of the
Abstract, authors should write 'long non-coding RNAs have' instead of 'long non-
coding RA has' - this is to imply that 'many' lncRNAs are now known. In the
second statement, 'most lncRNAs….is not' should be edited to 'most
lncRNAs….are not'. The third statement should be edited to make more sense -
for example, what do authors mean by 'not complete' - also, 'are' should be edited
to 'is'. Just reading the first three sentences and finding grammatical errors in
every sentence is not a great start. I am sure there would be numerous such
mistakes through out the manuscript. BUT I am not a language editor and I
would like the authors to very carefully proof read the entire manuscript and
correct all errors. Such errors are distracting !!
Please identify and name the cell lines in Abstract.
Introduction is poorly written. It needs to be completely re-written - to provide
better perspective of the problem. Such brief Introduction with not much
meaningful background information is not good. The first paragraph on Gastric
cancer is OK, although I would like authors to provide newer citations - I only
see 6-8 years old references there. The second paragraph is too brief and its
grammar needs improvement. In this paragraph on lncRNAs, provide more
details on what is known about lncRNAs in gastric cancer etc.
My first major concern is that authors have not provided any background or
justification for the focus on XLOC_004787. They need to explicitly discuss
why this lncRNA was chosen. Was it an unbiased approach ? If so, please
explain in detail (and provide details in terms of figures/tables) to make a case
for choosing this lncRNA.
The first section of Results is too brief. Why results from GES-1 are described
here when this cell line is not even mentioned in Methods? 
In the second section of Results, authors mention 26 pairs had higher lncRNA.
So, the results presented in Figure 2A are from 26 samples - if not, how do we
decipher from the presented bar graph that 26 out of 32 pairs had higher lncRNA
levels?
According to the Figure 2B, the lncRNA XLOC_004787 is expressed at lowest
rate in GES-1 cells. Why was this cell line used in Figure 1 for visualization and
cellular distribution of XLOC_004787? This does not make sense. Would the
observations differ if authors would have looked at XLOC_004787 in one of the
cell lines with better expression - authors should repeat experiment from Figure
1 in SGC7901 cells.
In Figures 4 and 5, authors look at various mechanisms. BUT I do not see any
mention of these in the Abstract, why ? Please ad this information to Abstract
along with results.
Another major concern I have is that the manuscript ends abruptly when authors
provide evidence for repression of miR-203a by XLOC_004787. Ideally, they
should have explored this further by finding a gene that is targeted by miR-203a.
However, at the very minimum, authors need to provide experimental evidence
that miR-203a can overcome silencing/overexpression of XLOC_004787,
particularly in terms of proliferation, EMT, wnt signaling etc.
The Results section in general needs more elaboration of results.
Discussion is also rather on the short side. Please consider expanding it.
Was this manuscript written 3-4 years back? I do not see any recent references?
The latest references cited are from 2019 !!
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Please refer to my detailed feedback above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Please address all of my concerns in a revised submission.
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No
assistant