Title: The m6A/m5C/m1A regulator genes Signature Reveals The Prognosis and Related with
Immune Microenvironment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Construction of a prognostic model for N6-Methyladenosine(m6A), 5-
Methylcytosine(m5C), N1-methyladenosine(m1A)-Related genes and its relationship with
immune microenvironment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” conducted by Liu et al. has been
evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation and clinical significance. In this study,
the author developed a novel m6A, m5C and m1A-related genes' prognostic model which
could be applied as a potential prognostic tool for HCC and might guide the choice of
immunotherapies. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before it is
suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. In
particular, texts in Figure 7 are hard to read due to the small font size and low resolution. I would
suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them easier
to read and understand. Also, why the legends of Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 and
Figure 7 are embedded in figures, while others not? This looks very confusing. Meanwhile, what
if Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 ??? This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand
the results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would
greatly improve the manuscript.
2. Some previous studies have used similar methods. Although it will lose some innovation, I
think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references, which would
provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study (PMID: 33850225,
PMID: 34099740, PMID: 36283420, PMID: 34306023...).
3. Detailed description of all method sections is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Major).
7. The author performed GSEA analysis based on KEGG set, why not added other set like
Hallmark and GO?
8. The relationship between immune cell infiltration and specific biological pathways should be
well discussed in the relevant section.
Title: The m6A/m5C/m1A regulator genes Signature Reveals The Prognosis and Related with
Immune Microenvironment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Construction of a prognostic model for N6-Methyladenosine(m6A), 5-
Methylcytosine(m5C), N1-methyladenosine(m1A)-Related genes and its relationship with
immune microenvironment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” conducted by Liu et al. has been
evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation and clinical significance. In this study,
the author developed a novel m6A, m5C and m1A-related genes' prognostic model which
could be applied as a potential prognostic tool for HCC and might guide the choice of
immunotherapies. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before it is
suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. In
particular, texts in Figure 7 are hard to read due to the small font size and low resolution. I would
suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them easier
to read and understand. Also, why the legends of Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 and
Figure 7 are embedded in figures, while others not? This looks very confusing. Meanwhile, what
if Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 ??? This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand
the results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would
greatly improve the manuscript.
2. Some previous studies have used similar methods. Although it will lose some innovation, I
think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references, which would
provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study (PMID: 33850225,
PMID: 34099740, PMID: 36283420, PMID: 34306023...).
3. Detailed description of all method sections is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Major).
7. The author performed GSEA analysis based on KEGG set, why not added other set like
Hallmark and GO?
8. The relationship between immune cell infiltration and specific biological pathways should be
well discussed in the relevant section.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The m6A/m5C/m1A regulator genes Signature Reveals The Prognosis and Related with
Immune Microenvironment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Construction of a prognostic model for N6-Methyladenosine(m6A), 5-
Methylcytosine(m5C), N1-methyladenosine(m1A)-Related genes and its relationship with
immune microenvironment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” conducted by Liu et al. has been
evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation and clinical significance. In this study,
the author developed a novel m6A, m5C and m1A-related genes' prognostic model which
could be applied as a potential prognostic tool for HCC and might guide the choice of
immunotherapies. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before it is
suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. In
particular, texts in Figure 7 are hard to read due to the small font size and low resolution. I would
suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them easier
to read and understand. Also, why the legends of Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 and
Figure 7 are embedded in figures, while others not? This looks very confusing. Meanwhile, what
if Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 ??? This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand
the results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would
greatly improve the manuscript.
2. Some previous studies have used similar methods. Although it will lose some innovation, I
think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references, which would
provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study (PMID: 33850225,
PMID: 34099740, PMID: 36283420, PMID: 34306023...).
3. Detailed description of all method sections is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Major).
7. The author performed GSEA analysis based on KEGG set, why not added other set like
Hallmark and GO?
8. The relationship between immune cell infiltration and specific biological pathways should be
well discussed in the relevant section.
assistant