Title: Bioinformatics Analysis Of Hedgehog Interacting Protein In Colorectal Cancer#A Study
Based On GEO Data And TCGA Data
Version: 0 Date: 02 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors did pan-cancer expression analysis of Hedgehog Interacting Protein (HHIP) genes.
And they detected downregulated HHIP genes in patients with colorectal (CRC) compared to
the normal and as a potential diagnosis biomarker for CRC. HHIP also showed a significant
correlation to immnue infiltration in CRC. HHIP genes. They further did non-coding RNA
analysis that relates to HHIP, and LINC02381 that has been reported as a carcinogenic in CRC
highly correlated to the expression of HHIP gene. The paper shows a poor language organization,
the abstract, subtitle, last sentence in some parts should be nice reorganized.
01. In the last sentence in abstract, there is no any support for which HHIP associated with poor
prognosis, the relate result should be exhibited.
02. LINC02381/miR-577 axis is a pathway? The concept here should be explain more clear
here, it just likes a complex that consists of miRNA and lncRNA rather than a pathway.
03. We can define a gene is an differential genes (at line 103) through the differential expression
level, differential structural and even different function, etc.. Which aspect do authors want to
show here.
04. Unclear intention of 2.2 part. Predicted miRNAs were considered as candidate miRNAs of
HHIP, candidate miRNAs for further analysis? The candidate here should be well-defined.
05. It's better use "a" rather "the" in line 152. And "lowly expressed" at line 161 should be
substituted by a "downregulated", and the comparison group should be listed.
06. The subtitle of 3.1 is not sufficient to comprehensively summarize the content of this section,
in this part, there also includes the association between HHIP expression and OS.
07. Misspelling word at line 168.
08. Line 185-186, poor language organization, and the conclusion (the most influential
regulatory ..) not suitable here.
09. Biomarkers of immune cells should be referred before line 229. Replenish the introduction
or at the begin in 3.5 part.
10. The px of the picture catch to standard level or not? The letters and symbols should have
a visual adjustment.
11. Figure 2 and 3 should be integrated together.
Title: Bioinformatics Analysis Of Hedgehog Interacting Protein In Colorectal Cancer#A Study
Based On GEO Data And TCGA Data
Version: 0 Date: 02 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors did pan-cancer expression analysis of Hedgehog Interacting Protein (HHIP) genes.
And they detected downregulated HHIP genes in patients with colorectal (CRC) compared to
the normal and as a potential diagnosis biomarker for CRC. HHIP also showed a significant
correlation to immnue infiltration in CRC. HHIP genes. They further did non-coding RNA
analysis that relates to HHIP, and LINC02381 that has been reported as a carcinogenic in CRC
highly correlated to the expression of HHIP gene. The paper shows a poor language organization,
the abstract, subtitle, last sentence in some parts should be nice reorganized.
01. In the last sentence in abstract, there is no any support for which HHIP associated with poor
prognosis, the relate result should be exhibited.
02. LINC02381/miR-577 axis is a pathway? The concept here should be explain more clear
here, it just likes a complex that consists of miRNA and lncRNA rather than a pathway.
03. We can define a gene is an differential genes (at line 103) through the differential expression
level, differential structural and even different function, etc.. Which aspect do authors want to
show here.
04. Unclear intention of 2.2 part. Predicted miRNAs were considered as candidate miRNAs of
HHIP, candidate miRNAs for further analysis? The candidate here should be well-defined.
05. It's better use "a" rather "the" in line 152. And "lowly expressed" at line 161 should be
substituted by a "downregulated", and the comparison group should be listed.
06. The subtitle of 3.1 is not sufficient to comprehensively summarize the content of this section,
in this part, there also includes the association between HHIP expression and OS.
07. Misspelling word at line 168.
08. Line 185-186, poor language organization, and the conclusion (the most influential
regulatory ..) not suitable here.
09. Biomarkers of immune cells should be referred before line 229. Replenish the introduction
or at the begin in 3.5 part.
10. The px of the picture catch to standard level or not? The letters and symbols should have
a visual adjustment.
11. Figure 2 and 3 should be integrated together.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Bioinformatics Analysis Of Hedgehog Interacting Protein In Colorectal Cancer#A Study
Based On GEO Data And TCGA Data
Version: 0 Date: 02 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors did pan-cancer expression analysis of Hedgehog Interacting Protein (HHIP) genes.
And they detected downregulated HHIP genes in patients with colorectal (CRC) compared to
the normal and as a potential diagnosis biomarker for CRC. HHIP also showed a significant
correlation to immnue infiltration in CRC. HHIP genes. They further did non-coding RNA
analysis that relates to HHIP, and LINC02381 that has been reported as a carcinogenic in CRC
highly correlated to the expression of HHIP gene. The paper shows a poor language organization,
the abstract, subtitle, last sentence in some parts should be nice reorganized.
01. In the last sentence in abstract, there is no any support for which HHIP associated with poor
prognosis, the relate result should be exhibited.
02. LINC02381/miR-577 axis is a pathway? The concept here should be explain more clear
here, it just likes a complex that consists of miRNA and lncRNA rather than a pathway.
03. We can define a gene is an differential genes (at line 103) through the differential expression
level, differential structural and even different function, etc.. Which aspect do authors want to
show here.
04. Unclear intention of 2.2 part. Predicted miRNAs were considered as candidate miRNAs of
HHIP, candidate miRNAs for further analysis? The candidate here should be well-defined.
05. It's better use "a" rather "the" in line 152. And "lowly expressed" at line 161 should be
substituted by a "downregulated", and the comparison group should be listed.
06. The subtitle of 3.1 is not sufficient to comprehensively summarize the content of this section,
in this part, there also includes the association between HHIP expression and OS.
07. Misspelling word at line 168.
08. Line 185-186, poor language organization, and the conclusion (the most influential
regulatory ..) not suitable here.
09. Biomarkers of immune cells should be referred before line 229. Replenish the introduction
or at the begin in 3.5 part.
10. The px of the picture catch to standard level or not? The letters and symbols should have
a visual adjustment.
11. Figure 2 and 3 should be integrated together.
assistant