Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Genetic variations of DICKKOPF family genes might not be  associated with gastric 
cancer  susceptibility  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Gopeshwar Narayan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Major comments:  
 
 
1. The title of the manuscript is not appropriate. The title does not reflect the major finding 
of the study. Relationship between genetic variants of DKKs family genes and risk of GC 
should be apparent from the title.  
 
 
2. A table for clinical characteristi cs should be included giving frequency of patients in each 
class.  
 
 
3. P-values are not given in tables 2 and 3.  
 
 
4. A table showing that the genotypes are in HWE may also be included.  
 
 
5. In the results section text stating about the genetic effects of six l oci according to 
confirmed histological types and GA genotype of rs1703712 in DKK2 must be supported 
by p-value.  
 
 
6. To show the association significant or not significant, p -values must be given in the text 
of the results section.  
 
 
7. Discussion is poorly w ritten. Authors need to discuss their results in this section to the 
significance of the study and correlate with previous published results.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Minor comments:  
 
There are multiple typos in the manuscript and many sentences are not clear. Some of these are:  
 
1. Abstract, line 38: please replace 'low penetrate' with 'low -penetrant'.  
 
 
2. Background, line 48: please replace '951, 600'with '951',600'.  
 
 
3. Background, line 53: please replace 'role of GC' with 'role in GC'.  
 
 
4. Background, lines 61 -63: the sentence is h ard to understand, please reframe it. It will be 
better too split the sentence.  
 
 
5. Background, line 76: please replace 'we take the hypothesis' with 'we hypothesized'.  
 
 
6. Background, lines 78 -81: please replace 'disclose'with 'find'; 'those'with 'the'were  in' with 
'áre in'. Both the sentences are not properly written. Please reframe these sentences.  
 
 
7. Material and methods, line 99, please replace 'quantitated' with 'quantified'; line 112 
please replace 'were' with 'are'.  
 
 
8. Results, line 127, please remov e 'As a result'from 'As a result, 409 GC cases'; line 142, 
please replace 'were shown' with 'ís shown'.  
 
 
9. Discussion, line 167, please replace 'DKKs were known' with 'DKKs are known'.  
 
 
10. Discussion, lines 183 -192: the sentences are not clear, please ref rame these sentences for 
clarity. Authors also mention here that their study is the first for the SNPs of DKK family 
genes with risk of GC. It should be made clear that whether authors are pointing towards 
some specific variants of DKKs or any variant.   
 
 
8. Conclusion is not clear. Please reframe the sentences.  
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, conside ring the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 the 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 be 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 wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Genetic variations of DICKKOPF family genes might not be  associated with gastric 
cancer  susceptibility  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Gopeshwar Narayan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Major comments:  
 
 
1. The title of the manuscript is not appropriate. The title does not reflect the major finding 
of the study. Relationship between genetic variants of DKKs family genes and risk of GC 
should be apparent from the title.  
 
 
2. A table for clinical characteristi cs should be included giving frequency of patients in each 
class.  
 
 
3. P-values are not given in tables 2 and 3.  
 
 
4. A table showing that the genotypes are in HWE may also be included.  
 
 
5. In the results section text stating about the genetic effects of six l oci according to 
confirmed histological types and GA genotype of rs1703712 in DKK2 must be supported 
by p-value.  
 
 
6. To show the association significant or not significant, p -values must be given in the text 
of the results section.  
 
 
7. Discussion is poorly w ritten. Authors need to discuss their results in this section to the 
significance of the study and correlate with previous published results.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Minor comments:  
 
There are multiple typos in the manuscript and many sentences are not clear. Some of these are:  
 
1. Abstract, line 38: please replace 'low penetrate' with 'low -penetrant'.  
 
 
2. Background, line 48: please replace '951, 600'with '951',600'.  
 
 
3. Background, line 53: please replace 'role of GC' with 'role in GC'.  
 
 
4. Background, lines 61 -63: the sentence is h ard to understand, please reframe it. It will be 
better too split the sentence.  
 
 
5. Background, line 76: please replace 'we take the hypothesis' with 'we hypothesized'.  
 
 
6. Background, lines 78 -81: please replace 'disclose'with 'find'; 'those'with 'the'were  in' with 
'áre in'. Both the sentences are not properly written. Please reframe these sentences.  
 
 
7. Material and methods, line 99, please replace 'quantitated' with 'quantified'; line 112 
please replace 'were' with 'are'.  
 
 
8. Results, line 127, please remov e 'As a result'from 'As a result, 409 GC cases'; line 142, 
please replace 'were shown' with 'ís shown'.  
 
 
9. Discussion, line 167, please replace 'DKKs were known' with 'DKKs are known'.  
 
 
10. Discussion, lines 183 -192: the sentences are not clear, please ref rame these sentences for 
clarity. Authors also mention here that their study is the first for the SNPs of DKK family 
genes with risk of GC. It should be made clear that whether authors are pointing towards 
some specific variants of DKKs or any variant.   
 
 
8. Conclusion is not clear. Please reframe the sentences.  
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, conside ring the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 the 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 be 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 wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Genetic variations of DICKKOPF family genes might not be  associated with gastric 
cancer  susceptibility  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Gopeshwar Narayan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Major comments:  
 
 
1. The title of the manuscript is not appropriate. The title does not reflect the major finding 
of the study. Relationship between genetic variants of DKKs family genes and risk of GC 
should be apparent from the title.  
 
 
2. A table for clinical characteristi cs should be included giving frequency of patients in each 
class.  
 
 
3. P-values are not given in tables 2 and 3.  
 
 
4. A table showing that the genotypes are in HWE may also be included.  
 
 
5. In the results section text stating about the genetic effects of six l oci according to 
confirmed histological types and GA genotype of rs1703712 in DKK2 must be supported 
by p-value.  
 
 
6. To show the association significant or not significant, p -values must be given in the text 
of the results section.  
 
 
7. Discussion is poorly w ritten. Authors need to discuss their results in this section to the 
significance of the study and correlate with previous published results.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Minor comments:  
 
There are multiple typos in the manuscript and many sentences are not clear. Some of these are:  
 
1. Abstract, line 38: please replace 'low penetrate' with 'low -penetrant'.  
 
 
2. Background, line 48: please replace '951, 600'with '951',600'.  
 
 
3. Background, line 53: please replace 'role of GC' with 'role in GC'.  
 
 
4. Background, lines 61 -63: the sentence is h ard to understand, please reframe it. It will be 
better too split the sentence.  
 
 
5. Background, line 76: please replace 'we take the hypothesis' with 'we hypothesized'.  
 
 
6. Background, lines 78 -81: please replace 'disclose'with 'find'; 'those'with 'the'were  in' with 
'áre in'. Both the sentences are not properly written. Please reframe these sentences.  
 
 
7. Material and methods, line 99, please replace 'quantitated' with 'quantified'; line 112 
please replace 'were' with 'are'.  
 
 
8. Results, line 127, please remov e 'As a result'from 'As a result, 409 GC cases'; line 142, 
please replace 'were shown' with 'ís shown'.  
 
 
9. Discussion, line 167, please replace 'DKKs were known' with 'DKKs are known'.  
 
 
10. Discussion, lines 183 -192: the sentences are not clear, please ref rame these sentences for 
clarity. Authors also mention here that their study is the first for the SNPs of DKK family 
genes with risk of GC. It should be made clear that whether authors are pointing towards 
some specific variants of DKKs or any variant.   
 
 
8. Conclusion is not clear. Please reframe the sentences.  
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, conside ring the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 the 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 be 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 wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant