Reviewer's report
Title:Deregulated expression of Nucleophosmin 1 in gastric cancer and its
clinicopathological implications
Version: 2Date:19 August 2013
Reviewer: Daniel P Barry
Reviewer's report:
The article has been improved by revision, but there are still two large issues in
need of correction, as well as a few typographical errors.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. It is still unclear what is meant by “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced
1.5-fold in 35% of tumors compared to paired nonneoplastic gastric tissue.
(Abstract/Results)” What is a 1.5-fold reduction? Is it reduced 33%, 66% or
150%? Do you mean that 35% of the tumors had “at least” this much reduction?
And is the value 1.5 significant? Why not 2-fold or 10-fold? Also, what happened
in the other 65% of tumors? Was there no change, greater change, less change?
This sentence needs rewording. The mRNA sentence in Abstract/Results has
similar issues as do the corresponding sections of the Results in the main body
of the text.
In the first paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could be reworded as
such (I think) to remove confusion: “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced by at
least one-third in 35% of GC samples, and no tumor presented an increase of
more than 1.5-fold compared to their paired non-neoplastic gastric tissue (Figure
1B and 1C).” In the second paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could
be reworded: “The NPM1 mRNA level was reduced by at least one-third in 45.5%
of samples and was increased in 27.3% of samples.” In fact, everywhere the
1.5-fold reduction is mentioned, rewording as “reduction by at least one-third”
would lessen the potential for confusion.
2. The Western blots in Figure 1C must show the calibration sample as well.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Oxynctic cells could be renamed as parietal cells, the more commonly used
term.
Minor issues not for publication
1. Remove “their” from the last sentence in Abstract/Background.
2. Remove “an” from the final sentence of the fourth paragraph in the
Background.
3. In Methods/Tissue samples (first paragraph), the word “accessed” should be
changed to “assessed”. In the third paragraph, “acid nucleic” should be “nucleic
acid”.
4. In Methods/NPM1 mRNA expression by reverse transcription quantitative
polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), was a non-neoplastic gastric tissue
“designed” or “designated” as a calibrator?
5. In paragraph 6 of Discussion, reword to “which suggests that a
post-translational mechanism may be involved” or “which suggests that
post-translational mechanisms may be involved” as appropriate.
6. Consistently capitalize “Western” blot / ”western” blot.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Deregulated expression of Nucleophosmin 1 in gastric cancer and its
clinicopathological implications
Version: 2Date:19 August 2013
Reviewer: Daniel P Barry
Reviewer's report:
The article has been improved by revision, but there are still two large issues in
need of correction, as well as a few typographical errors.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. It is still unclear what is meant by “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced
1.5-fold in 35% of tumors compared to paired nonneoplastic gastric tissue.
(Abstract/Results)” What is a 1.5-fold reduction? Is it reduced 33%, 66% or
150%? Do you mean that 35% of the tumors had “at least” this much reduction?
And is the value 1.5 significant? Why not 2-fold or 10-fold? Also, what happened
in the other 65% of tumors? Was there no change, greater change, less change?
This sentence needs rewording. The mRNA sentence in Abstract/Results has
similar issues as do the corresponding sections of the Results in the main body
of the text.
In the first paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could be reworded as
such (I think) to remove confusion: “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced by at
least one-third in 35% of GC samples, and no tumor presented an increase of
more than 1.5-fold compared to their paired non-neoplastic gastric tissue (Figure
1B and 1C).” In the second paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could
be reworded: “The NPM1 mRNA level was reduced by at least one-third in 45.5%
of samples and was increased in 27.3% of samples.” In fact, everywhere the
1.5-fold reduction is mentioned, rewording as “reduction by at least one-third”
would lessen the potential for confusion.
2. The Western blots in Figure 1C must show the calibration sample as well.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Oxynctic cells could be renamed as parietal cells, the more commonly used
term.
Minor issues not for publication
1. Remove “their” from the last sentence in Abstract/Background.
2. Remove “an” from the final sentence of the fourth paragraph in the
Background.
3. In Methods/Tissue samples (first paragraph), the word “accessed” should be
changed to “assessed”. In the third paragraph, “acid nucleic” should be “nucleic
acid”.
4. In Methods/NPM1 mRNA expression by reverse transcription quantitative
polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), was a non-neoplastic gastric tissue
“designed” or “designated” as a calibrator?
5. In paragraph 6 of Discussion, reword to “which suggests that a
post-translational mechanism may be involved” or “which suggests that
post-translational mechanisms may be involved” as appropriate.
6. Consistently capitalize “Western” blot / ”western” blot.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Deregulated expression of Nucleophosmin 1 in gastric cancer and its
clinicopathological implications
Version: 2Date:19 August 2013
Reviewer: Daniel P Barry
Reviewer's report:
The article has been improved by revision, but there are still two large issues in
need of correction, as well as a few typographical errors.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. It is still unclear what is meant by “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced
1.5-fold in 35% of tumors compared to paired nonneoplastic gastric tissue.
(Abstract/Results)” What is a 1.5-fold reduction? Is it reduced 33%, 66% or
150%? Do you mean that 35% of the tumors had “at least” this much reduction?
And is the value 1.5 significant? Why not 2-fold or 10-fold? Also, what happened
in the other 65% of tumors? Was there no change, greater change, less change?
This sentence needs rewording. The mRNA sentence in Abstract/Results has
similar issues as do the corresponding sections of the Results in the main body
of the text.
In the first paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could be reworded as
such (I think) to remove confusion: “The protein level of NPM1 was reduced by at
least one-third in 35% of GC samples, and no tumor presented an increase of
more than 1.5-fold compared to their paired non-neoplastic gastric tissue (Figure
1B and 1C).” In the second paragraph of the Results, the second sentence could
be reworded: “The NPM1 mRNA level was reduced by at least one-third in 45.5%
of samples and was increased in 27.3% of samples.” In fact, everywhere the
1.5-fold reduction is mentioned, rewording as “reduction by at least one-third”
would lessen the potential for confusion.
2. The Western blots in Figure 1C must show the calibration sample as well.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Oxynctic cells could be renamed as parietal cells, the more commonly used
term.
Minor issues not for publication
1. Remove “their” from the last sentence in Abstract/Background.
2. Remove “an” from the final sentence of the fourth paragraph in the
Background.
3. In Methods/Tissue samples (first paragraph), the word “accessed” should be
changed to “assessed”. In the third paragraph, “acid nucleic” should be “nucleic
acid”.
4. In Methods/NPM1 mRNA expression by reverse transcription quantitative
polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), was a non-neoplastic gastric tissue
“designed” or “designated” as a calibrator?
5. In paragraph 6 of Discussion, reword to “which suggests that a
post-translational mechanism may be involved” or “which suggests that
post-translational mechanisms may be involved” as appropriate.
6. Consistently capitalize “Western” blot / ”western” blot.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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