Reviewer's report
Title:The gene-reduction effect of chromosomal losses detected in gastric
cancers
Version: 1Date:31 July 2010
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Hong et al. describes the correlation of the level of loss of
heterozigosity (LOH) and the cell-adverse effects in gastric cancers of different
histological types. The manuscript is well written and the results relevant,
however some points should have to be clarified before its publication.
Minor Essentials Revisions:
-The authors said in page 6, last paragraph, and along manuscript that the eight
cancer-associated chromosomes examined had a low density of genes and no
stomach-specific genes. So, why those chromosomes were chosen? The authors
should clarify this point.
-The authors describe transcript analyses in the “Results” section, however
nothing is mentioned in the “Methods” section. Even if the authors used data
from previous papers, it is important to mention this in the “Methods” section.
-The authors cited 116 samples in the “Methods” section, but in the first line of
“Results” they cited 118.
-The authors should explain the relationship between 17p loss in the
intestinal-type cancers and 13q loss in the diffuse-type cancers. Is there any
cancer-related gene in the cited regions that could explain that?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:The gene-reduction effect of chromosomal losses detected in gastric
cancers
Version: 1Date:31 July 2010
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Hong et al. describes the correlation of the level of loss of
heterozigosity (LOH) and the cell-adverse effects in gastric cancers of different
histological types. The manuscript is well written and the results relevant,
however some points should have to be clarified before its publication.
Minor Essentials Revisions:
-The authors said in page 6, last paragraph, and along manuscript that the eight
cancer-associated chromosomes examined had a low density of genes and no
stomach-specific genes. So, why those chromosomes were chosen? The authors
should clarify this point.
-The authors describe transcript analyses in the “Results” section, however
nothing is mentioned in the “Methods” section. Even if the authors used data
from previous papers, it is important to mention this in the “Methods” section.
-The authors cited 116 samples in the “Methods” section, but in the first line of
“Results” they cited 118.
-The authors should explain the relationship between 17p loss in the
intestinal-type cancers and 13q loss in the diffuse-type cancers. Is there any
cancer-related gene in the cited regions that could explain that?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:The gene-reduction effect of chromosomal losses detected in gastric
cancers
Version: 1Date:31 July 2010
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Hong et al. describes the correlation of the level of loss of
heterozigosity (LOH) and the cell-adverse effects in gastric cancers of different
histological types. The manuscript is well written and the results relevant,
however some points should have to be clarified before its publication.
Minor Essentials Revisions:
-The authors said in page 6, last paragraph, and along manuscript that the eight
cancer-associated chromosomes examined had a low density of genes and no
stomach-specific genes. So, why those chromosomes were chosen? The authors
should clarify this point.
-The authors describe transcript analyses in the “Results” section, however
nothing is mentioned in the “Methods” section. Even if the authors used data
from previous papers, it is important to mention this in the “Methods” section.
-The authors cited 116 samples in the “Methods” section, but in the first line of
“Results” they cited 118.
-The authors should explain the relationship between 17p loss in the
intestinal-type cancers and 13q loss in the diffuse-type cancers. Is there any
cancer-related gene in the cited regions that could explain that?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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