Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author revised and responded to the previous review comments accordingly, so I re-
reviewed the article and found that there were still some problems:
1. The WB method, Lines 180-187, is described too simply. The authors should add some
detailed information, such as the loading amount of protein and the incubation time and
temperature of primary and secondary antibodies.
2. Fig 9B, WB of ZBTB10, could authors confirm the molecular weight of ZBTB10? In
Figure, the MW of ZBTB10 is 130kDa, however, the MW of ZBTB10 in the antibody product
information is 95kDa. Could authors explain the MW difference?
3. Some grammatical problems in the article still need to be fixed. For example, line 243 should
be revised to “Two pairs of gastric tumors” and line 386 should be revised to “migration assay
showed an obvious reduction of cell migration”. There are some other grammatical problems in
the manuscript. My suggestion is to ask for a native speaker or change to another professional
institution to modify and polish the language of the article if the manuscript has been edited.
Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author revised and responded to the previous review comments accordingly, so I re-
reviewed the article and found that there were still some problems:
1. The WB method, Lines 180-187, is described too simply. The authors should add some
detailed information, such as the loading amount of protein and the incubation time and
temperature of primary and secondary antibodies.
2. Fig 9B, WB of ZBTB10, could authors confirm the molecular weight of ZBTB10? In
Figure, the MW of ZBTB10 is 130kDa, however, the MW of ZBTB10 in the antibody product
information is 95kDa. Could authors explain the MW difference?
3. Some grammatical problems in the article still need to be fixed. For example, line 243 should
be revised to “Two pairs of gastric tumors” and line 386 should be revised to “migration assay
showed an obvious reduction of cell migration”. There are some other grammatical problems in
the manuscript. My suggestion is to ask for a native speaker or change to another professional
institution to modify and polish the language of the article if the manuscript has been edited.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: ZBTB10 as a potential prognosis biomarker and correlates with tumor immune
microenvironment in stomach adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The author revised and responded to the previous review comments accordingly, so I re-
reviewed the article and found that there were still some problems:
1. The WB method, Lines 180-187, is described too simply. The authors should add some
detailed information, such as the loading amount of protein and the incubation time and
temperature of primary and secondary antibodies.
2. Fig 9B, WB of ZBTB10, could authors confirm the molecular weight of ZBTB10? In
Figure, the MW of ZBTB10 is 130kDa, however, the MW of ZBTB10 in the antibody product
information is 95kDa. Could authors explain the MW difference?
3. Some grammatical problems in the article still need to be fixed. For example, line 243 should
be revised to “Two pairs of gastric tumors” and line 386 should be revised to “migration assay
showed an obvious reduction of cell migration”. There are some other grammatical problems in
the manuscript. My suggestion is to ask for a native speaker or change to another professional
institution to modify and polish the language of the article if the manuscript has been edited.
assistant