Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:3Date:7 January 2015
Reviewer: Enrica Rumiato
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the impact of three selected genetic polymorphisms in
<italics>NAMPT<italics> gene on the risk to develop esophageal cancer
carcinoma, studying 405 ESCC patients and 405 matched controls. They found
that the rs61330082 polymorphism is associated with the risk to develop ESCC
and it could be also a risk factor in haplotype with the two other
<italics>NAMPT<italics> variants.
The aim of the study is original, however, there are several major limitations.
Major revisions
English needs a deep revision (tenses, sentence structure, acronyms,
grammatical errors, etc.). It is unpleasant to read and difficult to judge the
scientific content of the manuscript in this form.
Furthermore:
1. In the Abstract there are several discrepancies between the Results and
Conclusion as concern genotypes (lines 42 and 50). Many contradictions are
also present in the text. The authors should be consistent throughout their article.
2. The gene <italics>NAMPT<italics> is cited as “Nampt” all over the manuscript
and in the Title. The authors should follow the Human Genome Organization
Gene Nomenclature (capital/italics for genes and only capital for proteins).
3. The Discussion must be improved and better structured, and the authors
should also clearly state the limitations of their work.
Minor revisions
1.The study is technically sound: there are more recent methods than the
RFLP-PCR. A validation set is desirable.
2.The authors should also include a correction for multiple tests.
3. All the percent values should be approximated in the same way (in the
Abstract, Tables and text).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:3Date:7 January 2015
Reviewer: Enrica Rumiato
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the impact of three selected genetic polymorphisms in
<italics>NAMPT<italics> gene on the risk to develop esophageal cancer
carcinoma, studying 405 ESCC patients and 405 matched controls. They found
that the rs61330082 polymorphism is associated with the risk to develop ESCC
and it could be also a risk factor in haplotype with the two other
<italics>NAMPT<italics> variants.
The aim of the study is original, however, there are several major limitations.
Major revisions
English needs a deep revision (tenses, sentence structure, acronyms,
grammatical errors, etc.). It is unpleasant to read and difficult to judge the
scientific content of the manuscript in this form.
Furthermore:
1. In the Abstract there are several discrepancies between the Results and
Conclusion as concern genotypes (lines 42 and 50). Many contradictions are
also present in the text. The authors should be consistent throughout their article.
2. The gene <italics>NAMPT<italics> is cited as “Nampt” all over the manuscript
and in the Title. The authors should follow the Human Genome Organization
Gene Nomenclature (capital/italics for genes and only capital for proteins).
3. The Discussion must be improved and better structured, and the authors
should also clearly state the limitations of their work.
Minor revisions
1.The study is technically sound: there are more recent methods than the
RFLP-PCR. A validation set is desirable.
2.The authors should also include a correction for multiple tests.
3. All the percent values should be approximated in the same way (in the
Abstract, Tables and text).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:3Date:7 January 2015
Reviewer: Enrica Rumiato
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the impact of three selected genetic polymorphisms in
<italics>NAMPT<italics> gene on the risk to develop esophageal cancer
carcinoma, studying 405 ESCC patients and 405 matched controls. They found
that the rs61330082 polymorphism is associated with the risk to develop ESCC
and it could be also a risk factor in haplotype with the two other
<italics>NAMPT<italics> variants.
The aim of the study is original, however, there are several major limitations.
Major revisions
English needs a deep revision (tenses, sentence structure, acronyms,
grammatical errors, etc.). It is unpleasant to read and difficult to judge the
scientific content of the manuscript in this form.
Furthermore:
1. In the Abstract there are several discrepancies between the Results and
Conclusion as concern genotypes (lines 42 and 50). Many contradictions are
also present in the text. The authors should be consistent throughout their article.
2. The gene <italics>NAMPT<italics> is cited as “Nampt” all over the manuscript
and in the Title. The authors should follow the Human Genome Organization
Gene Nomenclature (capital/italics for genes and only capital for proteins).
3. The Discussion must be improved and better structured, and the authors
should also clearly state the limitations of their work.
Minor revisions
1.The study is technically sound: there are more recent methods than the
RFLP-PCR. A validation set is desirable.
2.The authors should also include a correction for multiple tests.
3. All the percent values should be approximated in the same way (in the
Abstract, Tables and text).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant