Title: CD10 and Das1: a biomarker study using immunohistochemistry to subtype gastric
intestinal metaplasia
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The present study aimed to offer an objective biomarker to diagnose complete/incomplete types
of intestinal metaplasia (IM). Based on the gene expression data and the previous literature,
CD10 and Das-1 were chosen for IHC stain and the results showed CD10 a good biomarker
for the diagnosis of complete IM and Das-1 a potential marker for IM progression. The results
are interest and could help patients stratification for high gastric cancer risk and future target
surveillance. There are questions and suggestions as follows:
Major:
1. In this study, the golden standard to diagnose complete/incomplete IM was the consensus
of two independent pathologists. Significant different gene expressions were observed in the
complete/incomplete IM glands diagnosed by the independent pathologists. It seemed that
correct diagnosis of complete/incomplete IM could be achieved with H&E stain by ‘careful
inspection’ of the pathologists. The authors might mention more rationales for the necessity of
objective biomarkers in the manuscript.
2. Why choose Das-1 according to the previous literature as the candidate biomarker but not the
genes specifically expressed in incomplete IM in this study?
Minor:
1. The last line of the first paragraph on page 6: “Additionally, we aimed to identify complete
IM that may be at higher risk of progression.” This sentence is a little confused. If the authors’
meaning was “ to find a marker to indicate higher risk of progression in complete IM” ?
2. There are many abbreviations in this manuscript. It would be better to list all abbreviations
as possible. Ex. KEGG pathway.
3. In contrast to CD-10, the conclusion that Das-1 might be a potential marker to indicate higher
risk of IM progression was based on the increase of digital quantification of Das-1 stain within
the whole layer of gland tissue, not the single gland analysis. The statements in the manuscript
would be better to be more clarified.
Title: CD10 and Das1: a biomarker study using immunohistochemistry to subtype gastric
intestinal metaplasia
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The present study aimed to offer an objective biomarker to diagnose complete/incomplete types
of intestinal metaplasia (IM). Based on the gene expression data and the previous literature,
CD10 and Das-1 were chosen for IHC stain and the results showed CD10 a good biomarker
for the diagnosis of complete IM and Das-1 a potential marker for IM progression. The results
are interest and could help patients stratification for high gastric cancer risk and future target
surveillance. There are questions and suggestions as follows:
Major:
1. In this study, the golden standard to diagnose complete/incomplete IM was the consensus
of two independent pathologists. Significant different gene expressions were observed in the
complete/incomplete IM glands diagnosed by the independent pathologists. It seemed that
correct diagnosis of complete/incomplete IM could be achieved with H&E stain by ‘careful
inspection’ of the pathologists. The authors might mention more rationales for the necessity of
objective biomarkers in the manuscript.
2. Why choose Das-1 according to the previous literature as the candidate biomarker but not the
genes specifically expressed in incomplete IM in this study?
Minor:
1. The last line of the first paragraph on page 6: “Additionally, we aimed to identify complete
IM that may be at higher risk of progression.” This sentence is a little confused. If the authors’
meaning was “ to find a marker to indicate higher risk of progression in complete IM” ?
2. There are many abbreviations in this manuscript. It would be better to list all abbreviations
as possible. Ex. KEGG pathway.
3. In contrast to CD-10, the conclusion that Das-1 might be a potential marker to indicate higher
risk of IM progression was based on the increase of digital quantification of Das-1 stain within
the whole layer of gland tissue, not the single gland analysis. The statements in the manuscript
would be better to be more clarified.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: CD10 and Das1: a biomarker study using immunohistochemistry to subtype gastric
intestinal metaplasia
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The present study aimed to offer an objective biomarker to diagnose complete/incomplete types
of intestinal metaplasia (IM). Based on the gene expression data and the previous literature,
CD10 and Das-1 were chosen for IHC stain and the results showed CD10 a good biomarker
for the diagnosis of complete IM and Das-1 a potential marker for IM progression. The results
are interest and could help patients stratification for high gastric cancer risk and future target
surveillance. There are questions and suggestions as follows:
Major:
1. In this study, the golden standard to diagnose complete/incomplete IM was the consensus
of two independent pathologists. Significant different gene expressions were observed in the
complete/incomplete IM glands diagnosed by the independent pathologists. It seemed that
correct diagnosis of complete/incomplete IM could be achieved with H&E stain by ‘careful
inspection’ of the pathologists. The authors might mention more rationales for the necessity of
objective biomarkers in the manuscript.
2. Why choose Das-1 according to the previous literature as the candidate biomarker but not the
genes specifically expressed in incomplete IM in this study?
Minor:
1. The last line of the first paragraph on page 6: “Additionally, we aimed to identify complete
IM that may be at higher risk of progression.” This sentence is a little confused. If the authors’
meaning was “ to find a marker to indicate higher risk of progression in complete IM” ?
2. There are many abbreviations in this manuscript. It would be better to list all abbreviations
as possible. Ex. KEGG pathway.
3. In contrast to CD-10, the conclusion that Das-1 might be a potential marker to indicate higher
risk of IM progression was based on the increase of digital quantification of Das-1 stain within
the whole layer of gland tissue, not the single gland analysis. The statements in the manuscript
would be better to be more clarified.
assistant