Title: To Verify the Biological Characteristics of Disulfidptosis Associated Gene ADORA2B
in Esophageal Cancer
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study investigates the biological role of the disulfidptosis-associated gene ADORA2B in
esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by integrating bioinformatics, transcriptomics,
and in vitro experiments. Using public databases like TCGA and GEO, the authors identified
that ADORA2B is overexpressed in ESCC and is associated with poor prognosis. Further
analyses revealed its correlation with immune infiltration and tumor microenvironment (TME)
characteristics. In vitro experiments, including qRT-PCR, Western blot, knockdown studies,
CCK8, Transwell, Edu, and flow cytometry, demonstrated that ADORA2B promotes the
proliferation, migration, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis of ESCC cells. These results
highlight ADORA2B as a potential diagnostic biomarker and therapeutic target for ESCC.
However, there are many problems in this article worth explaining and improving.
Comment 1.The definitions of certain professional terms in the manuscript lack precision. For
example, "iron death" should be replaced with the more commonly used and standardized term
"ferroptosis" to ensure academic accuracy and consistency.
Comment 2.Errors in spelling and software tool descriptions in the Methods section:
Multiple spelling errors were identified in the Methods section, such as "Rsudio" and "R studio,"
which should be corrected to "RStudio."
The description of "DEseq2 software" is inaccurate; DESeq2 is not standalone software but an
R package for data analysis. It should be referred to as the "DESeq2 package" or "R package
DESeq2."
In describing the processing of GSE196756 data, the relationship between "R" and "RStudio"
is unnecessarily repeated. It would be more concise and accurate to state, "processed in R using
the Seurat package."
Comment 3.Inaccuracies in the description of the Western blot method:
The phrase "48 hESCA cells were transfected, cultivated using a western blot technique"
contains a major error, as Western blot is a detection method, not a cell culture technique.
Additionally, the statement "The primary antibody was removed" is misleading, as it implies
that the primary antibody was removed before incubation. The procedural steps are inconsistent
and need to be revised for clarity and accuracy.
Comment 4.Unclear description of the EdU experiment:
The EdU experiment lacks details such as the source of the EdU reagents, the type of
microscope used for image acquisition, and imaging parameters. The description is insufficiently
standardized, which compromises reproducibility.
Comment 5.Undefined data and terminology:
The term "COR RESULT" in the Results section is not clearly defined, making this part of
the text difficult to interpret for readers. Additionally, the overall presentation of this section is
overly complex and would benefit from added clarity and background information.
Comment 6.Discrepancy between results and data:
The statement "The TCGA database shows that ADORA2B was differently expressed in all
malignancies (Figure 1E)" is inconsistent with the figure data, which indicates that ADORA2B
expression does not vary significantly in some cancers. The phrase "all malignancies" should
be revised to accurately reflect the data.
Comment 7.Deviation of Discussion content: Why is the content of the Discussion part an
analysis of the correlation between ADORA2B expression and clinical features?
Comment 8.Conclusion is overly lengthy and lacks focus:
The Conclusion section is overly verbose, failing to adequately highlight the study's innovation.
Comment 9.The specific meaning of "****" in Figure 9A is unclear, as the statistical
significance threshold it represents is not defined. Additionally, the method of comparison for
the significance is not specified, which groups were compared? Furthermore, multiple time
points within the same group are marked with "****" but the statistical rationale for this is not
explained, resulting in unclear presentation of the results.
Comment 10.Lack of clarity in language expression:
The manuscript contains verbose, repetitive, and imprecise language, with some sections lacking
logical coherence. Significant improvements in language refinement and academic expression
are necessary to enhance clarity and readability.
Title: To Verify the Biological Characteristics of Disulfidptosis Associated Gene ADORA2B
in Esophageal Cancer
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study investigates the biological role of the disulfidptosis-associated gene ADORA2B in
esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by integrating bioinformatics, transcriptomics,
and in vitro experiments. Using public databases like TCGA and GEO, the authors identified
that ADORA2B is overexpressed in ESCC and is associated with poor prognosis. Further
analyses revealed its correlation with immune infiltration and tumor microenvironment (TME)
characteristics. In vitro experiments, including qRT-PCR, Western blot, knockdown studies,
CCK8, Transwell, Edu, and flow cytometry, demonstrated that ADORA2B promotes the
proliferation, migration, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis of ESCC cells. These results
highlight ADORA2B as a potential diagnostic biomarker and therapeutic target for ESCC.
However, there are many problems in this article worth explaining and improving.
Comment 1.The definitions of certain professional terms in the manuscript lack precision. For
example, "iron death" should be replaced with the more commonly used and standardized term
"ferroptosis" to ensure academic accuracy and consistency.
Comment 2.Errors in spelling and software tool descriptions in the Methods section:
Multiple spelling errors were identified in the Methods section, such as "Rsudio" and "R studio,"
which should be corrected to "RStudio."
The description of "DEseq2 software" is inaccurate; DESeq2 is not standalone software but an
R package for data analysis. It should be referred to as the "DESeq2 package" or "R package
DESeq2."
In describing the processing of GSE196756 data, the relationship between "R" and "RStudio"
is unnecessarily repeated. It would be more concise and accurate to state, "processed in R using
the Seurat package."
Comment 3.Inaccuracies in the description of the Western blot method:
The phrase "48 hESCA cells were transfected, cultivated using a western blot technique"
contains a major error, as Western blot is a detection method, not a cell culture technique.
Additionally, the statement "The primary antibody was removed" is misleading, as it implies
that the primary antibody was removed before incubation. The procedural steps are inconsistent
and need to be revised for clarity and accuracy.
Comment 4.Unclear description of the EdU experiment:
The EdU experiment lacks details such as the source of the EdU reagents, the type of
microscope used for image acquisition, and imaging parameters. The description is insufficiently
standardized, which compromises reproducibility.
Comment 5.Undefined data and terminology:
The term "COR RESULT" in the Results section is not clearly defined, making this part of
the text difficult to interpret for readers. Additionally, the overall presentation of this section is
overly complex and would benefit from added clarity and background information.
Comment 6.Discrepancy between results and data:
The statement "The TCGA database shows that ADORA2B was differently expressed in all
malignancies (Figure 1E)" is inconsistent with the figure data, which indicates that ADORA2B
expression does not vary significantly in some cancers. The phrase "all malignancies" should
be revised to accurately reflect the data.
Comment 7.Deviation of Discussion content: Why is the content of the Discussion part an
analysis of the correlation between ADORA2B expression and clinical features?
Comment 8.Conclusion is overly lengthy and lacks focus:
The Conclusion section is overly verbose, failing to adequately highlight the study's innovation.
Comment 9.The specific meaning of "****" in Figure 9A is unclear, as the statistical
significance threshold it represents is not defined. Additionally, the method of comparison for
the significance is not specified, which groups were compared? Furthermore, multiple time
points within the same group are marked with "****" but the statistical rationale for this is not
explained, resulting in unclear presentation of the results.
Comment 10.Lack of clarity in language expression:
The manuscript contains verbose, repetitive, and imprecise language, with some sections lacking
logical coherence. Significant improvements in language refinement and academic expression
are necessary to enhance clarity and readability.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: To Verify the Biological Characteristics of Disulfidptosis Associated Gene ADORA2B
in Esophageal Cancer
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study investigates the biological role of the disulfidptosis-associated gene ADORA2B in
esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by integrating bioinformatics, transcriptomics,
and in vitro experiments. Using public databases like TCGA and GEO, the authors identified
that ADORA2B is overexpressed in ESCC and is associated with poor prognosis. Further
analyses revealed its correlation with immune infiltration and tumor microenvironment (TME)
characteristics. In vitro experiments, including qRT-PCR, Western blot, knockdown studies,
CCK8, Transwell, Edu, and flow cytometry, demonstrated that ADORA2B promotes the
proliferation, migration, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis of ESCC cells. These results
highlight ADORA2B as a potential diagnostic biomarker and therapeutic target for ESCC.
However, there are many problems in this article worth explaining and improving.
Comment 1.The definitions of certain professional terms in the manuscript lack precision. For
example, "iron death" should be replaced with the more commonly used and standardized term
"ferroptosis" to ensure academic accuracy and consistency.
Comment 2.Errors in spelling and software tool descriptions in the Methods section:
Multiple spelling errors were identified in the Methods section, such as "Rsudio" and "R studio,"
which should be corrected to "RStudio."
The description of "DEseq2 software" is inaccurate; DESeq2 is not standalone software but an
R package for data analysis. It should be referred to as the "DESeq2 package" or "R package
DESeq2."
In describing the processing of GSE196756 data, the relationship between "R" and "RStudio"
is unnecessarily repeated. It would be more concise and accurate to state, "processed in R using
the Seurat package."
Comment 3.Inaccuracies in the description of the Western blot method:
The phrase "48 hESCA cells were transfected, cultivated using a western blot technique"
contains a major error, as Western blot is a detection method, not a cell culture technique.
Additionally, the statement "The primary antibody was removed" is misleading, as it implies
that the primary antibody was removed before incubation. The procedural steps are inconsistent
and need to be revised for clarity and accuracy.
Comment 4.Unclear description of the EdU experiment:
The EdU experiment lacks details such as the source of the EdU reagents, the type of
microscope used for image acquisition, and imaging parameters. The description is insufficiently
standardized, which compromises reproducibility.
Comment 5.Undefined data and terminology:
The term "COR RESULT" in the Results section is not clearly defined, making this part of
the text difficult to interpret for readers. Additionally, the overall presentation of this section is
overly complex and would benefit from added clarity and background information.
Comment 6.Discrepancy between results and data:
The statement "The TCGA database shows that ADORA2B was differently expressed in all
malignancies (Figure 1E)" is inconsistent with the figure data, which indicates that ADORA2B
expression does not vary significantly in some cancers. The phrase "all malignancies" should
be revised to accurately reflect the data.
Comment 7.Deviation of Discussion content: Why is the content of the Discussion part an
analysis of the correlation between ADORA2B expression and clinical features?
Comment 8.Conclusion is overly lengthy and lacks focus:
The Conclusion section is overly verbose, failing to adequately highlight the study's innovation.
Comment 9.The specific meaning of "****" in Figure 9A is unclear, as the statistical
significance threshold it represents is not defined. Additionally, the method of comparison for
the significance is not specified, which groups were compared? Furthermore, multiple time
points within the same group are marked with "****" but the statistical rationale for this is not
explained, resulting in unclear presentation of the results.
Comment 10.Lack of clarity in language expression:
The manuscript contains verbose, repetitive, and imprecise language, with some sections lacking
logical coherence. Significant improvements in language refinement and academic expression
are necessary to enhance clarity and readability.
assistant