Title: Construction of immune-related lncRNA signature to predict aggressiveness, immune
landscape, and drug resistance of colon cancer
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript deals with a bioinformatic analysis of immune
related long non coding RNA (irlncRNA) in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) associated to biological
features of CRC and host immune response to predict aggressivity, resistance to therapy and
immune infiltration. This analysis is well performed and of interest.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No experimental data are shown, and an experimental validation of the conclusions has been
performed.
This is the main limitation of this study. The different lncRNA identified as relevant in the
“construction” of the signature are not related to actual experimental data validated in CRC cell
lines or in CRC organoids to reinforce and demonstrate the validity of the findings reported.
This limitation is mentioned in the text at the end of this manuscript.
No clear explanation of the reason why, among the plethora of potential markers, the authors
have selected LAG3 and TGFbeta as markers for the correlation analysis of immune genes.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the analysis of other markers is not effective. It is
well known that several inhibitory receptors are present in the microenvironment. It seems that
looking at LAG3 and TGF, one can categorize all CRC. Is there any relation with the irlncRNA
with the expression and function of LAG-3? What about the association with the expression and
function of CTLA4, PD1, KIR, LIR, LIR, TIGIT, CD300, LAIR (without taking into account
the others) on specific immune cells within the microenvironment.
The methodology appears well organized, and the topic is of interest. However, the data remain
a very nice analysis and suggestion without an evident applicability into the clinic as well as to
get further insight on the biology and immune response in CRC.
Title: Construction of immune-related lncRNA signature to predict aggressiveness, immune
landscape, and drug resistance of colon cancer
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript deals with a bioinformatic analysis of immune
related long non coding RNA (irlncRNA) in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) associated to biological
features of CRC and host immune response to predict aggressivity, resistance to therapy and
immune infiltration. This analysis is well performed and of interest.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No experimental data are shown, and an experimental validation of the conclusions has been
performed.
This is the main limitation of this study. The different lncRNA identified as relevant in the
“construction” of the signature are not related to actual experimental data validated in CRC cell
lines or in CRC organoids to reinforce and demonstrate the validity of the findings reported.
This limitation is mentioned in the text at the end of this manuscript.
No clear explanation of the reason why, among the plethora of potential markers, the authors
have selected LAG3 and TGFbeta as markers for the correlation analysis of immune genes.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the analysis of other markers is not effective. It is
well known that several inhibitory receptors are present in the microenvironment. It seems that
looking at LAG3 and TGF, one can categorize all CRC. Is there any relation with the irlncRNA
with the expression and function of LAG-3? What about the association with the expression and
function of CTLA4, PD1, KIR, LIR, LIR, TIGIT, CD300, LAIR (without taking into account
the others) on specific immune cells within the microenvironment.
The methodology appears well organized, and the topic is of interest. However, the data remain
a very nice analysis and suggestion without an evident applicability into the clinic as well as to
get further insight on the biology and immune response in CRC.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Construction of immune-related lncRNA signature to predict aggressiveness, immune
landscape, and drug resistance of colon cancer
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This manuscript deals with a bioinformatic analysis of immune
related long non coding RNA (irlncRNA) in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) associated to biological
features of CRC and host immune response to predict aggressivity, resistance to therapy and
immune infiltration. This analysis is well performed and of interest.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No experimental data are shown, and an experimental validation of the conclusions has been
performed.
This is the main limitation of this study. The different lncRNA identified as relevant in the
“construction” of the signature are not related to actual experimental data validated in CRC cell
lines or in CRC organoids to reinforce and demonstrate the validity of the findings reported.
This limitation is mentioned in the text at the end of this manuscript.
No clear explanation of the reason why, among the plethora of potential markers, the authors
have selected LAG3 and TGFbeta as markers for the correlation analysis of immune genes.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the analysis of other markers is not effective. It is
well known that several inhibitory receptors are present in the microenvironment. It seems that
looking at LAG3 and TGF, one can categorize all CRC. Is there any relation with the irlncRNA
with the expression and function of LAG-3? What about the association with the expression and
function of CTLA4, PD1, KIR, LIR, LIR, TIGIT, CD300, LAIR (without taking into account
the others) on specific immune cells within the microenvironment.
The methodology appears well organized, and the topic is of interest. However, the data remain
a very nice analysis and suggestion without an evident applicability into the clinic as well as to
get further insight on the biology and immune response in CRC.
assistant