Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Prognostic Significance of Expression of Cysteine -Rich 61 and Cyclooxygenase -2 in 
Gastric Cancer  
 
Version:  0 Date : 05 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Juozas Kupcins kas 
 
Reviewer's report:  
Wang &  Wang present an original paper, where th ey show that co -expression of Cyr -61 and 
Cox-2 in gastric cancer tissues might be a marker of poor survival in GC patients. The authors 
employed imunohistochemical approach for measurement of Cyr -61 and Cox -2 expression in 82 
gastric cancer tissues and 43 non-tumorous gastric tissue samples. There are multiple reports on 
Cox-2 and survival of gastric cancer patients, while here, in this paper, the authors focus on 
prognostic value of Cyr -61/Cox -2 co -expression that has not been reported previously. The 
authors need to address certain issues before considering this manuscript for publication.  
Comments:  
1) English language needs to be revised throughout the manuscript. There are some parts that 
are difficult to follow: eg. pg.4. Ln 47 "On the other hand"; pg. 8, ln. 175 -177 "reduces the 
incidence  of  colorectal  polyp,  and  prevent  its  transformation", etc.  
2) Statistical analyses: consider using Fisher test instead of Chi -square in some of the sub -
analysis due a very small number of individuals in some of the groups.   
3) Did the authors assess the differences between protein levels of COX -2 and Cyr -61 between 
two histological subtypes of GC: diffuse and intestinal type?  
4) Measurement of COX -2 and Cyr -61 RNA levels in GC tissues and healthy controls would 
provide valuable additional information in the paper.  
5) Why TNM stage was not included in multivariate analyses in Table 3?  
6) Image resolution in Figure 3 is not high enough to evaluate it. The author's need to improve 
it. The exact 5 -year survival rate f or high COX -2/Cyr -61 co -expression is not stated in the 
result section.  
7) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln 155 -157 - please include correct number of GC cases and 
controls.  
8) Discussion section: pg. 9 ln 159 -164 - This paragrapgh is highly repetitive with the 
statements in the introduction section and seems to be redundant in the discussion section.  
9) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln. 200 -205 Consider revising this segment, because it is not clear 
what is meant here.  
10) Conslussions: The statement: "However,  the downstream signaling pathways of Cyr - 
61/COX -2  and  their  interaction  in  gastric  cancer  have  not  been  elucidated,  which  
need  to  be further investigated" needs to  be omitted from conclusions, because it has 
nothing to do with the findings  of the study.  
11) Abstract: Concluding statement in the abstract needs to revised and accurately reflect the 
findings of the study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Needs some language corrections before being published  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation th at may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, ei ther now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of th e above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare that I have no competing interests  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will b e included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pub lished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Prognostic Significance of Expression of Cysteine -Rich 61 and Cyclooxygenase -2 in 
Gastric Cancer  
 
Version:  0 Date : 05 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Juozas Kupcins kas 
 
Reviewer's report:  
Wang &  Wang present an original paper, where th ey show that co -expression of Cyr -61 and 
Cox-2 in gastric cancer tissues might be a marker of poor survival in GC patients. The authors 
employed imunohistochemical approach for measurement of Cyr -61 and Cox -2 expression in 82 
gastric cancer tissues and 43 non-tumorous gastric tissue samples. There are multiple reports on 
Cox-2 and survival of gastric cancer patients, while here, in this paper, the authors focus on 
prognostic value of Cyr -61/Cox -2 co -expression that has not been reported previously. The 
authors need to address certain issues before considering this manuscript for publication.  
Comments:  
1) English language needs to be revised throughout the manuscript. There are some parts that 
are difficult to follow: eg. pg.4. Ln 47 "On the other hand"; pg. 8, ln. 175 -177 "reduces the 
incidence  of  colorectal  polyp,  and  prevent  its  transformation", etc.  
2) Statistical analyses: consider using Fisher test instead of Chi -square in some of the sub -
analysis due a very small number of individuals in some of the groups.   
3) Did the authors assess the differences between protein levels of COX -2 and Cyr -61 between 
two histological subtypes of GC: diffuse and intestinal type?  
4) Measurement of COX -2 and Cyr -61 RNA levels in GC tissues and healthy controls would 
provide valuable additional information in the paper.  
5) Why TNM stage was not included in multivariate analyses in Table 3?  
6) Image resolution in Figure 3 is not high enough to evaluate it. The author's need to improve 
it. The exact 5 -year survival rate f or high COX -2/Cyr -61 co -expression is not stated in the 
result section.  
7) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln 155 -157 - please include correct number of GC cases and 
controls.  
8) Discussion section: pg. 9 ln 159 -164 - This paragrapgh is highly repetitive with the 
statements in the introduction section and seems to be redundant in the discussion section.  
9) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln. 200 -205 Consider revising this segment, because it is not clear 
what is meant here.  
10) Conslussions: The statement: "However,  the downstream signaling pathways of Cyr - 
61/COX -2  and  their  interaction  in  gastric  cancer  have  not  been  elucidated,  which  
need  to  be further investigated" needs to  be omitted from conclusions, because it has 
nothing to do with the findings  of the study.  
11) Abstract: Concluding statement in the abstract needs to revised and accurately reflect the 
findings of the study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Needs some language corrections before being published  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation th at may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, ei ther now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of th e above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare that I have no competing interests  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will b e included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pub lished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Prognostic Significance of Expression of Cysteine -Rich 61 and Cyclooxygenase -2 in 
Gastric Cancer  
 
Version:  0 Date : 05 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Juozas Kupcins kas 
 
Reviewer's report:  
Wang &  Wang present an original paper, where th ey show that co -expression of Cyr -61 and 
Cox-2 in gastric cancer tissues might be a marker of poor survival in GC patients. The authors 
employed imunohistochemical approach for measurement of Cyr -61 and Cox -2 expression in 82 
gastric cancer tissues and 43 non-tumorous gastric tissue samples. There are multiple reports on 
Cox-2 and survival of gastric cancer patients, while here, in this paper, the authors focus on 
prognostic value of Cyr -61/Cox -2 co -expression that has not been reported previously. The 
authors need to address certain issues before considering this manuscript for publication.  
Comments:  
1) English language needs to be revised throughout the manuscript. There are some parts that 
are difficult to follow: eg. pg.4. Ln 47 "On the other hand"; pg. 8, ln. 175 -177 "reduces the 
incidence  of  colorectal  polyp,  and  prevent  its  transformation", etc.  
2) Statistical analyses: consider using Fisher test instead of Chi -square in some of the sub -
analysis due a very small number of individuals in some of the groups.   
3) Did the authors assess the differences between protein levels of COX -2 and Cyr -61 between 
two histological subtypes of GC: diffuse and intestinal type?  
4) Measurement of COX -2 and Cyr -61 RNA levels in GC tissues and healthy controls would 
provide valuable additional information in the paper.  
5) Why TNM stage was not included in multivariate analyses in Table 3?  
6) Image resolution in Figure 3 is not high enough to evaluate it. The author's need to improve 
it. The exact 5 -year survival rate f or high COX -2/Cyr -61 co -expression is not stated in the 
result section.  
7) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln 155 -157 - please include correct number of GC cases and 
controls.  
8) Discussion section: pg. 9 ln 159 -164 - This paragrapgh is highly repetitive with the 
statements in the introduction section and seems to be redundant in the discussion section.  
9) Discussion section: pg. 9, ln. 200 -205 Consider revising this segment, because it is not clear 
what is meant here.  
10) Conslussions: The statement: "However,  the downstream signaling pathways of Cyr - 
61/COX -2  and  their  interaction  in  gastric  cancer  have  not  been  elucidated,  which  
need  to  be further investigated" needs to  be omitted from conclusions, because it has 
nothing to do with the findings  of the study.  
11) Abstract: Concluding statement in the abstract needs to revised and accurately reflect the 
findings of the study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Needs some language corrections before being published  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation th at may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, ei ther now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of th e above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare that I have no competing interests  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will b e included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pub lished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant