Title: The rs9953490 polymorphism of DAL-1 gene is associated with gastric cancer risk in the
Han population in Northeast China
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Wang et al. aimed to investigate the DAL-1 polymorphisms with gastric cancer risk.
This is another in a series of publications on finding genetic variants associated with gastric
cancer risk. Although a population size included in the study is relatively decent, the study has
a number of inconsistencies that need to be clarified.
The SNP selection criteria are poorly defined and it is not clear what is the “function” of these
selected SNPs. Authors stated that these SNPs are potentially functional? On what assumption?
Which databases, browsers etc. were used for their selection? These should be clarified.
Authors clearly wrote that was no association between 5 SNPs with GC risk, however the
conclusion says something else. Similarly, the authors observed the association with TA+AA
genotype of rs9953490 before adjustment, however after adjustment this association was lost.
The authors observed association only in stratified analyses on significantly smaller population.
These should be clarified.
The same applies for LD chapter. I assume that LD should be one of the criterions for SNP
selection. It is not clear how the authors selected haplotypes and how they analyzed the risk
of GC.
No correction for multiple testing was applied. In case the statistical analyses were corrected for
multiple testing, part of the results will not appear as significant.
Patients were collected in 2016, so the question arises as to why the authors did not performed
associations of SNPs with survival.
Genotyping part is poorly written.
How the cut of 58 age was selected in the analysis?
Minor:
Row 170 significantly appeared twice
Title: The rs9953490 polymorphism of DAL-1 gene is associated with gastric cancer risk in the
Han population in Northeast China
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Wang et al. aimed to investigate the DAL-1 polymorphisms with gastric cancer risk.
This is another in a series of publications on finding genetic variants associated with gastric
cancer risk. Although a population size included in the study is relatively decent, the study has
a number of inconsistencies that need to be clarified.
The SNP selection criteria are poorly defined and it is not clear what is the “function” of these
selected SNPs. Authors stated that these SNPs are potentially functional? On what assumption?
Which databases, browsers etc. were used for their selection? These should be clarified.
Authors clearly wrote that was no association between 5 SNPs with GC risk, however the
conclusion says something else. Similarly, the authors observed the association with TA+AA
genotype of rs9953490 before adjustment, however after adjustment this association was lost.
The authors observed association only in stratified analyses on significantly smaller population.
These should be clarified.
The same applies for LD chapter. I assume that LD should be one of the criterions for SNP
selection. It is not clear how the authors selected haplotypes and how they analyzed the risk
of GC.
No correction for multiple testing was applied. In case the statistical analyses were corrected for
multiple testing, part of the results will not appear as significant.
Patients were collected in 2016, so the question arises as to why the authors did not performed
associations of SNPs with survival.
Genotyping part is poorly written.
How the cut of 58 age was selected in the analysis?
Minor:
Row 170 significantly appeared twice
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The rs9953490 polymorphism of DAL-1 gene is associated with gastric cancer risk in the
Han population in Northeast China
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Wang et al. aimed to investigate the DAL-1 polymorphisms with gastric cancer risk.
This is another in a series of publications on finding genetic variants associated with gastric
cancer risk. Although a population size included in the study is relatively decent, the study has
a number of inconsistencies that need to be clarified.
The SNP selection criteria are poorly defined and it is not clear what is the “function” of these
selected SNPs. Authors stated that these SNPs are potentially functional? On what assumption?
Which databases, browsers etc. were used for their selection? These should be clarified.
Authors clearly wrote that was no association between 5 SNPs with GC risk, however the
conclusion says something else. Similarly, the authors observed the association with TA+AA
genotype of rs9953490 before adjustment, however after adjustment this association was lost.
The authors observed association only in stratified analyses on significantly smaller population.
These should be clarified.
The same applies for LD chapter. I assume that LD should be one of the criterions for SNP
selection. It is not clear how the authors selected haplotypes and how they analyzed the risk
of GC.
No correction for multiple testing was applied. In case the statistical analyses were corrected for
multiple testing, part of the results will not appear as significant.
Patients were collected in 2016, so the question arises as to why the authors did not performed
associations of SNPs with survival.
Genotyping part is poorly written.
How the cut of 58 age was selected in the analysis?
Minor:
Row 170 significantly appeared twice
assistant