Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:17 November 2009
Reviewer: Yusuke Tajima
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the relations between abnormalities of cell cycle-related
proteins and mucin phenotype in the early phase of differentiated-type gastric
cancers. From the findings of the study, the authors concluded that the cellular
mucin phenotypes of intramucosal differentiated-type adenocarcinomas of the
stomach are dependent on distinct cell cycle-related alterations, and that the
clinicopathological findings result from different pathways based on mucin
expression. The authors analyzed the large amount of data using a lot of
immunohistochemical markers. Although this is an informative paper, there are
several shortcomings that should be revised.
Major comments
(1) Gastric phenotype cancers may include several types of cancers, such as
MUC5AC+ and MUC6+, MUC5AC+ and MUC6-, and MUC5AC- and MUC6+.
Intestinal phenotype cancers also include MUC2+ and CD10+, MUC2+ and
CD10-, and MUC2- and CD10+. In fact, the authors noted that intestinal
phenotype tumors were sub-classified into 2 groups: colonic type (positive for
MUC 2 only) and small intestinal type (positive for CD10) (page 7, line 7). The
authors should mention the differences in clinicopathological features and
immunohistochemical factors examined among these subgroups.
(2) Some findings on the relations between mucin phenotype and expressions of
the cell cycle-related proteins determined in this study seem to overlap with those
in the previous papers. As a result, it is difficult to understand the new findings by
this paper analyzing the large amount of data. The authors need to further
distinguish their results from previous studies by others, perhaps in a summary
matrix table that would simplify understanding by the reader.
Minor comments
(1) The authors used the word “mucin phenotype”. However, does CD10
immunoreaction mean “mucin” expression?
(2) This study showed that p53 expression was more frequently found in gastric
phenotype cancers. However, previous papers reported that p53 mutation was
rather the characteristic of intestinal phenotype cancers or cancers with CD10
expression (Endoh et al. J Pathol 2000;191:257-263, Tajima et al. Clin Cancer
Res 2006; 12: 6469-6479). It is necessary to discuss with these papers.
(3) Figures
The figures showing expressions of mucin markers are needed?
(4) Table 3, figure 2, and figure 4
Gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “type”?
Is gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “phenotype” correct?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:17 November 2009
Reviewer: Yusuke Tajima
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the relations between abnormalities of cell cycle-related
proteins and mucin phenotype in the early phase of differentiated-type gastric
cancers. From the findings of the study, the authors concluded that the cellular
mucin phenotypes of intramucosal differentiated-type adenocarcinomas of the
stomach are dependent on distinct cell cycle-related alterations, and that the
clinicopathological findings result from different pathways based on mucin
expression. The authors analyzed the large amount of data using a lot of
immunohistochemical markers. Although this is an informative paper, there are
several shortcomings that should be revised.
Major comments
(1) Gastric phenotype cancers may include several types of cancers, such as
MUC5AC+ and MUC6+, MUC5AC+ and MUC6-, and MUC5AC- and MUC6+.
Intestinal phenotype cancers also include MUC2+ and CD10+, MUC2+ and
CD10-, and MUC2- and CD10+. In fact, the authors noted that intestinal
phenotype tumors were sub-classified into 2 groups: colonic type (positive for
MUC 2 only) and small intestinal type (positive for CD10) (page 7, line 7). The
authors should mention the differences in clinicopathological features and
immunohistochemical factors examined among these subgroups.
(2) Some findings on the relations between mucin phenotype and expressions of
the cell cycle-related proteins determined in this study seem to overlap with those
in the previous papers. As a result, it is difficult to understand the new findings by
this paper analyzing the large amount of data. The authors need to further
distinguish their results from previous studies by others, perhaps in a summary
matrix table that would simplify understanding by the reader.
Minor comments
(1) The authors used the word “mucin phenotype”. However, does CD10
immunoreaction mean “mucin” expression?
(2) This study showed that p53 expression was more frequently found in gastric
phenotype cancers. However, previous papers reported that p53 mutation was
rather the characteristic of intestinal phenotype cancers or cancers with CD10
expression (Endoh et al. J Pathol 2000;191:257-263, Tajima et al. Clin Cancer
Res 2006; 12: 6469-6479). It is necessary to discuss with these papers.
(3) Figures
The figures showing expressions of mucin markers are needed?
(4) Table 3, figure 2, and figure 4
Gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “type”?
Is gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “phenotype” correct?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:17 November 2009
Reviewer: Yusuke Tajima
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the relations between abnormalities of cell cycle-related
proteins and mucin phenotype in the early phase of differentiated-type gastric
cancers. From the findings of the study, the authors concluded that the cellular
mucin phenotypes of intramucosal differentiated-type adenocarcinomas of the
stomach are dependent on distinct cell cycle-related alterations, and that the
clinicopathological findings result from different pathways based on mucin
expression. The authors analyzed the large amount of data using a lot of
immunohistochemical markers. Although this is an informative paper, there are
several shortcomings that should be revised.
Major comments
(1) Gastric phenotype cancers may include several types of cancers, such as
MUC5AC+ and MUC6+, MUC5AC+ and MUC6-, and MUC5AC- and MUC6+.
Intestinal phenotype cancers also include MUC2+ and CD10+, MUC2+ and
CD10-, and MUC2- and CD10+. In fact, the authors noted that intestinal
phenotype tumors were sub-classified into 2 groups: colonic type (positive for
MUC 2 only) and small intestinal type (positive for CD10) (page 7, line 7). The
authors should mention the differences in clinicopathological features and
immunohistochemical factors examined among these subgroups.
(2) Some findings on the relations between mucin phenotype and expressions of
the cell cycle-related proteins determined in this study seem to overlap with those
in the previous papers. As a result, it is difficult to understand the new findings by
this paper analyzing the large amount of data. The authors need to further
distinguish their results from previous studies by others, perhaps in a summary
matrix table that would simplify understanding by the reader.
Minor comments
(1) The authors used the word “mucin phenotype”. However, does CD10
immunoreaction mean “mucin” expression?
(2) This study showed that p53 expression was more frequently found in gastric
phenotype cancers. However, previous papers reported that p53 mutation was
rather the characteristic of intestinal phenotype cancers or cancers with CD10
expression (Endoh et al. J Pathol 2000;191:257-263, Tajima et al. Clin Cancer
Res 2006; 12: 6469-6479). It is necessary to discuss with these papers.
(3) Figures
The figures showing expressions of mucin markers are needed?
(4) Table 3, figure 2, and figure 4
Gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “type”?
Is gastric (intestinal, mixed, or unclassified) “phenotype” correct?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant