Reviewer's report
Title:Stromal expression of miR-21 in T3-4a colorectal cancer is an independent
predictor of early tumor relapse
Version:1Date:20 October 2014
Reviewer: Alessio Naccarati
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Kyung Kang et al reports the expression levels of miR-21 in
277 advanced colorectal cancer patients in association with tumor progression
and the expression of MTA1 and E-cadherin genes.
The study is quite interesting, the design appropriate and the outcomes clearly
presented.
There are only some aspects to be clarified/improved. In particular several
sentences should be reformulated and language improved.
Major Compulsory Revision
The authors should consider whether other possible methodologies could be
used to detect simultaneously miR-21 expression levels by a quantitative
methods. Or at least trying to investigate if in online available CRC database
(TCGA) is possible to retrieve similar data and compare the results.
More references related to miR-21 and CRC, with particular emphasis to
progression, could be retreived and discussed..
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract
Line 22: there is no straight connection between the first and the second
sentence. MTA1 and E-cadherin should be introduced..
Line 43: conclusions should be reformulated..miR-21 is not regulated with the
expression of the two investigated genes…Maybe, better to write “related to”.
Among keywords, miR-21 and survival could be added.
Introduction
Line 53-54 which biomarkers? Maybe some examples and references could be
included.
Line 77: the whole sentence about ISH is not related to what previously
described and what follows. Additionally no reference is included..
Methods:
Line 107-108: what is actually a “microarray construction”? what does it mean
“We constructed tissue microarrays from FFPE”?
Line 147: two categories of what? I guess “expression “ is missing..
Results
Line 177: instead of “were” please replace with “that resulted significant”.
Discussion:
Line 217: replace however with “while”.
Line 220: tumor progression
Line 234: please reformulate the sentence removing “a single-institution…”..
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Stromal expression of miR-21 in T3-4a colorectal cancer is an independent
predictor of early tumor relapse
Version:1Date:20 October 2014
Reviewer: Alessio Naccarati
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Kyung Kang et al reports the expression levels of miR-21 in
277 advanced colorectal cancer patients in association with tumor progression
and the expression of MTA1 and E-cadherin genes.
The study is quite interesting, the design appropriate and the outcomes clearly
presented.
There are only some aspects to be clarified/improved. In particular several
sentences should be reformulated and language improved.
Major Compulsory Revision
The authors should consider whether other possible methodologies could be
used to detect simultaneously miR-21 expression levels by a quantitative
methods. Or at least trying to investigate if in online available CRC database
(TCGA) is possible to retrieve similar data and compare the results.
More references related to miR-21 and CRC, with particular emphasis to
progression, could be retreived and discussed..
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract
Line 22: there is no straight connection between the first and the second
sentence. MTA1 and E-cadherin should be introduced..
Line 43: conclusions should be reformulated..miR-21 is not regulated with the
expression of the two investigated genes…Maybe, better to write “related to”.
Among keywords, miR-21 and survival could be added.
Introduction
Line 53-54 which biomarkers? Maybe some examples and references could be
included.
Line 77: the whole sentence about ISH is not related to what previously
described and what follows. Additionally no reference is included..
Methods:
Line 107-108: what is actually a “microarray construction”? what does it mean
“We constructed tissue microarrays from FFPE”?
Line 147: two categories of what? I guess “expression “ is missing..
Results
Line 177: instead of “were” please replace with “that resulted significant”.
Discussion:
Line 217: replace however with “while”.
Line 220: tumor progression
Line 234: please reformulate the sentence removing “a single-institution…”..
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Stromal expression of miR-21 in T3-4a colorectal cancer is an independent
predictor of early tumor relapse
Version:1Date:20 October 2014
Reviewer: Alessio Naccarati
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Kyung Kang et al reports the expression levels of miR-21 in
277 advanced colorectal cancer patients in association with tumor progression
and the expression of MTA1 and E-cadherin genes.
The study is quite interesting, the design appropriate and the outcomes clearly
presented.
There are only some aspects to be clarified/improved. In particular several
sentences should be reformulated and language improved.
Major Compulsory Revision
The authors should consider whether other possible methodologies could be
used to detect simultaneously miR-21 expression levels by a quantitative
methods. Or at least trying to investigate if in online available CRC database
(TCGA) is possible to retrieve similar data and compare the results.
More references related to miR-21 and CRC, with particular emphasis to
progression, could be retreived and discussed..
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract
Line 22: there is no straight connection between the first and the second
sentence. MTA1 and E-cadherin should be introduced..
Line 43: conclusions should be reformulated..miR-21 is not regulated with the
expression of the two investigated genes…Maybe, better to write “related to”.
Among keywords, miR-21 and survival could be added.
Introduction
Line 53-54 which biomarkers? Maybe some examples and references could be
included.
Line 77: the whole sentence about ISH is not related to what previously
described and what follows. Additionally no reference is included..
Methods:
Line 107-108: what is actually a “microarray construction”? what does it mean
“We constructed tissue microarrays from FFPE”?
Line 147: two categories of what? I guess “expression “ is missing..
Results
Line 177: instead of “were” please replace with “that resulted significant”.
Discussion:
Line 217: replace however with “while”.
Line 220: tumor progression
Line 234: please reformulate the sentence removing “a single-institution…”..
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant