Reviewer's report
Title:Up-Regulation of CNDP2 Facilitates the Proliferation of Colon Cancer
Version:2Date:9 December 2013
Reviewer: Wim Derave
Reviewer's report:
The responses and modifications based on my comments were somewhat
incomplete. Modifications were made on one place, but not systematically
applied to the entire manuscript.
One major concern was that there is little evidence to date whether CN2 is
involved in the degradation of carnosine. This was now adapted in the
discussion, but not in the abstract (CNDP2 degrades carnosine) and second
paragraph of introduction (‘it degrades carnosine’). The authors have no scientific
arguments to state that the reduced carcinogenesis and proliferation of colon
cancer cells associated with reduced CN2, is linked to the blunted degradation of
carnosine. It could be another –yet unclear- function of CN2 (unrelated to
carnosine). It is equally not clear where the carnosine would come from that
needs to be degraded. Is there endogenous concentration of carnosine in the
colon intestinal wall tissue? Or is it meant that the absorbed carnosine/anserine
from the diet is degraded by CN2. The latter seems not logical as
histidine-containing dipeptides are likely absorbed in the small intestine. In other
words, the physiological and pathophysiological rationale and working hypothesis
is still insufficiently elaborated.
Sufficient prudence and uncertainty should be included in the manuscript as to
the role of carnosine in this story.
Please systematically refer to CN2, when referring to the enzyme and protein,
and CNDP2 when referring to the gene. This applies to entire manuscript.
The number of typos and spelling errors is still substantial, especially in the
revised/added parts. Please have it revised by native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Up-Regulation of CNDP2 Facilitates the Proliferation of Colon Cancer
Version:2Date:9 December 2013
Reviewer: Wim Derave
Reviewer's report:
The responses and modifications based on my comments were somewhat
incomplete. Modifications were made on one place, but not systematically
applied to the entire manuscript.
One major concern was that there is little evidence to date whether CN2 is
involved in the degradation of carnosine. This was now adapted in the
discussion, but not in the abstract (CNDP2 degrades carnosine) and second
paragraph of introduction (‘it degrades carnosine’). The authors have no scientific
arguments to state that the reduced carcinogenesis and proliferation of colon
cancer cells associated with reduced CN2, is linked to the blunted degradation of
carnosine. It could be another –yet unclear- function of CN2 (unrelated to
carnosine). It is equally not clear where the carnosine would come from that
needs to be degraded. Is there endogenous concentration of carnosine in the
colon intestinal wall tissue? Or is it meant that the absorbed carnosine/anserine
from the diet is degraded by CN2. The latter seems not logical as
histidine-containing dipeptides are likely absorbed in the small intestine. In other
words, the physiological and pathophysiological rationale and working hypothesis
is still insufficiently elaborated.
Sufficient prudence and uncertainty should be included in the manuscript as to
the role of carnosine in this story.
Please systematically refer to CN2, when referring to the enzyme and protein,
and CNDP2 when referring to the gene. This applies to entire manuscript.
The number of typos and spelling errors is still substantial, especially in the
revised/added parts. Please have it revised by native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Up-Regulation of CNDP2 Facilitates the Proliferation of Colon Cancer
Version:2Date:9 December 2013
Reviewer: Wim Derave
Reviewer's report:
The responses and modifications based on my comments were somewhat
incomplete. Modifications were made on one place, but not systematically
applied to the entire manuscript.
One major concern was that there is little evidence to date whether CN2 is
involved in the degradation of carnosine. This was now adapted in the
discussion, but not in the abstract (CNDP2 degrades carnosine) and second
paragraph of introduction (‘it degrades carnosine’). The authors have no scientific
arguments to state that the reduced carcinogenesis and proliferation of colon
cancer cells associated with reduced CN2, is linked to the blunted degradation of
carnosine. It could be another –yet unclear- function of CN2 (unrelated to
carnosine). It is equally not clear where the carnosine would come from that
needs to be degraded. Is there endogenous concentration of carnosine in the
colon intestinal wall tissue? Or is it meant that the absorbed carnosine/anserine
from the diet is degraded by CN2. The latter seems not logical as
histidine-containing dipeptides are likely absorbed in the small intestine. In other
words, the physiological and pathophysiological rationale and working hypothesis
is still insufficiently elaborated.
Sufficient prudence and uncertainty should be included in the manuscript as to
the role of carnosine in this story.
Please systematically refer to CN2, when referring to the enzyme and protein,
and CNDP2 when referring to the gene. This applies to entire manuscript.
The number of typos and spelling errors is still substantial, especially in the
revised/added parts. Please have it revised by native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
assistant