Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study presents an interesting investigation into the potential role of ZBTB10 as a prognostic
biomarker for STAD. The authors utilized different bioinformatic analyses and in vitro studies
to indicate that ZBTB10 plays a significant role in STAD prognosis and is associated with the
immune microenvironment. However, several concerns need to be addressed to strengthen the
authors’ findings.
Major:
1. In the methods, lines 234-238, the authors demonstrated that 3 pairs of tumor and adjacent
normal tissue were used to evaluate the ZBTB10 expressions. However, in Fig. 2D, lines
282-283, there were only 2 pairs of tissues, and the quantification result was missing. My
suggestion is to show the present tissue images with quantified results in Fig. 2D.
2. Line 290-293, in Fig 3A, the expression level of ZBTB10 in normal was higher than that
in Grade 1 tumor. Also, the expression of ZBTB 10 in Grades 2 and 3 looked similar. Could
the authors explain more about the relationship between ZBTB10 expression and tumor grade?
Furthermore, could the authors explain the statistical analysis methods used in Figure 3? If you
compare multiple groups, the T-test is not a good choice.
3. The protein expression of ZBTB10 in different cell lines before and after treatment should
be added for better clarity in Fig. 9A.
4. The quantification of the organoid area after different treatments is required to draw the
conclusion in Fig. 9D and Fig. 10.
5. What’s the effect of ZBTB10 overexpression on these in vitro validation experiments?
Minor:
1. Please correct the relevant pattern numbers in Figure 1 to be consistent with those described in
this manuscript. For example, there’s no Fig. 1C in your figure but appeared in your results part.
2. In Fig 9, please add related units to the bar figure. In Fig 9E, please double-check the image
label of different cell lines. 0
3. Language. There’re several grammar mistakes in this manuscript.  It is best to have a native
speaker read it in advance. For example, in the abstract (line 22), “using various bioinformatics
tool including….” should be “tools”. Similarly, in line 34, “expressed in in various tumors”,
there’s a repeated “in” in the sentence. There’re too many similar grammar mistakes in the
article. Please correct them.
Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study presents an interesting investigation into the potential role of ZBTB10 as a prognostic
biomarker for STAD. The authors utilized different bioinformatic analyses and in vitro studies
to indicate that ZBTB10 plays a significant role in STAD prognosis and is associated with the
immune microenvironment. However, several concerns need to be addressed to strengthen the
authors’ findings.
Major:
1. In the methods, lines 234-238, the authors demonstrated that 3 pairs of tumor and adjacent
normal tissue were used to evaluate the ZBTB10 expressions. However, in Fig. 2D, lines
282-283, there were only 2 pairs of tissues, and the quantification result was missing. My
suggestion is to show the present tissue images with quantified results in Fig. 2D.
2. Line 290-293, in Fig 3A, the expression level of ZBTB10 in normal was higher than that
in Grade 1 tumor. Also, the expression of ZBTB 10 in Grades 2 and 3 looked similar. Could
the authors explain more about the relationship between ZBTB10 expression and tumor grade?
Furthermore, could the authors explain the statistical analysis methods used in Figure 3? If you
compare multiple groups, the T-test is not a good choice.
3. The protein expression of ZBTB10 in different cell lines before and after treatment should
be added for better clarity in Fig. 9A.
4. The quantification of the organoid area after different treatments is required to draw the
conclusion in Fig. 9D and Fig. 10.
5. What’s the effect of ZBTB10 overexpression on these in vitro validation experiments?
Minor:
1. Please correct the relevant pattern numbers in Figure 1 to be consistent with those described in
this manuscript. For example, there’s no Fig. 1C in your figure but appeared in your results part.
2. In Fig 9, please add related units to the bar figure. In Fig 9E, please double-check the image
label of different cell lines. 0
3. Language. There’re several grammar mistakes in this manuscript.  It is best to have a native
speaker read it in advance. For example, in the abstract (line 22), “using various bioinformatics
tool including….” should be “tools”. Similarly, in line 34, “expressed in in various tumors”,
there’s a repeated “in” in the sentence. There’re too many similar grammar mistakes in the
article. Please correct them.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 09 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study presents an interesting investigation into the potential role of ZBTB10 as a prognostic
biomarker for STAD. The authors utilized different bioinformatic analyses and in vitro studies
to indicate that ZBTB10 plays a significant role in STAD prognosis and is associated with the
immune microenvironment. However, several concerns need to be addressed to strengthen the
authors’ findings.
Major:
1. In the methods, lines 234-238, the authors demonstrated that 3 pairs of tumor and adjacent
normal tissue were used to evaluate the ZBTB10 expressions. However, in Fig. 2D, lines
282-283, there were only 2 pairs of tissues, and the quantification result was missing. My
suggestion is to show the present tissue images with quantified results in Fig. 2D.
2. Line 290-293, in Fig 3A, the expression level of ZBTB10 in normal was higher than that
in Grade 1 tumor. Also, the expression of ZBTB 10 in Grades 2 and 3 looked similar. Could
the authors explain more about the relationship between ZBTB10 expression and tumor grade?
Furthermore, could the authors explain the statistical analysis methods used in Figure 3? If you
compare multiple groups, the T-test is not a good choice.
3. The protein expression of ZBTB10 in different cell lines before and after treatment should
be added for better clarity in Fig. 9A.
4. The quantification of the organoid area after different treatments is required to draw the
conclusion in Fig. 9D and Fig. 10.
5. What’s the effect of ZBTB10 overexpression on these in vitro validation experiments?
Minor:
1. Please correct the relevant pattern numbers in Figure 1 to be consistent with those described in
this manuscript. For example, there’s no Fig. 1C in your figure but appeared in your results part.
2. In Fig 9, please add related units to the bar figure. In Fig 9E, please double-check the image
label of different cell lines. 0
3. Language. There’re several grammar mistakes in this manuscript.  It is best to have a native
speaker read it in advance. For example, in the abstract (line 22), “using various bioinformatics
tool including….” should be “tools”. Similarly, in line 34, “expressed in in various tumors”,
there’s a repeated “in” in the sentence. There’re too many similar grammar mistakes in the
article. Please correct them.
assistant