Title: Prognostic and biological function value of OSBPL3 in colorectal cancer analyzed by
Multi-Omic data analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors analyzed and validated the OSBPL3 in a cohort study and found a correlation
with clinical prognostic values. The results of this study contributed to the advancement of
treatment of CRC and were very valuable. I think the paper is well organized, with no excesses
or deficiencies in the construction of the research design, the statistical treatment of the results,
and the conclusions drawn from the results. I read it with great interest.
I have the following comments.
Minor points
1. No explanation of abbreviations in Fig. 1 (e.g. BLCA, BRCA, CESC...)
2. In Fig. 1, OSBPL3 was conversely decreased in KIRC and PRAD. No discussion derived
from these comparisons.
3. In Fig. 7, the data was presented without any explanation of the relationship between the
function of OSBPL3 and the regulatory mechanism of drug resistance, which seemed abrupt.
Although the data is clinically significant, the significance of presenting the data is not clear.
In addition, the results were at odds with the correlation with prognosis shown in previous
experiments.
4. In “discussion” line 329, “However, these results indicated the expression of OSBPL3 had
changed in CRC”. I think this is an important point: if OSBPL3 expression levels may change
depending on the clinical stage of CRC, then it should be properly analyzed for use as a
biomarker.
Title: Prognostic and biological function value of OSBPL3 in colorectal cancer analyzed by
Multi-Omic data analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors analyzed and validated the OSBPL3 in a cohort study and found a correlation
with clinical prognostic values. The results of this study contributed to the advancement of
treatment of CRC and were very valuable. I think the paper is well organized, with no excesses
or deficiencies in the construction of the research design, the statistical treatment of the results,
and the conclusions drawn from the results. I read it with great interest.
I have the following comments.
Minor points
1. No explanation of abbreviations in Fig. 1 (e.g. BLCA, BRCA, CESC...)
2. In Fig. 1, OSBPL3 was conversely decreased in KIRC and PRAD. No discussion derived
from these comparisons.
3. In Fig. 7, the data was presented without any explanation of the relationship between the
function of OSBPL3 and the regulatory mechanism of drug resistance, which seemed abrupt.
Although the data is clinically significant, the significance of presenting the data is not clear.
In addition, the results were at odds with the correlation with prognosis shown in previous
experiments.
4. In “discussion” line 329, “However, these results indicated the expression of OSBPL3 had
changed in CRC”. I think this is an important point: if OSBPL3 expression levels may change
depending on the clinical stage of CRC, then it should be properly analyzed for use as a
biomarker.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic and biological function value of OSBPL3 in colorectal cancer analyzed by
Multi-Omic data analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors analyzed and validated the OSBPL3 in a cohort study and found a correlation
with clinical prognostic values. The results of this study contributed to the advancement of
treatment of CRC and were very valuable. I think the paper is well organized, with no excesses
or deficiencies in the construction of the research design, the statistical treatment of the results,
and the conclusions drawn from the results. I read it with great interest.
I have the following comments.
Minor points
1. No explanation of abbreviations in Fig. 1 (e.g. BLCA, BRCA, CESC...)
2. In Fig. 1, OSBPL3 was conversely decreased in KIRC and PRAD. No discussion derived
from these comparisons.
3. In Fig. 7, the data was presented without any explanation of the relationship between the
function of OSBPL3 and the regulatory mechanism of drug resistance, which seemed abrupt.
Although the data is clinically significant, the significance of presenting the data is not clear.
In addition, the results were at odds with the correlation with prognosis shown in previous
experiments.
4. In “discussion” line 329, “However, these results indicated the expression of OSBPL3 had
changed in CRC”. I think this is an important point: if OSBPL3 expression levels may change
depending on the clinical stage of CRC, then it should be properly analyzed for use as a
biomarker.
assistant