Title: Expression patterns and prognostic value of key regulators associated with m7G RNA
modification based on all gene expression in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 06 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Weinan Xue
Reviewer's report:
Summary: The authors explored the expression patterns and established a prognostic model
based on regulators related to m7G RNA modification.
Strength: The predictive effect was validated in an independent cohort.
Limitations:
The analysis results of the authors are all from the public database and limited to the RNA level,
there is a lack of validation in their own colon cancer samples.
There is a lack of experiments in vivo or vitro to explore the molecular function of four-genes
in the model.
Other issues
Abbreviated names only need to be marked when they first appear, such as “LASSO, m7G,
etc.”, other similar errors are no longer listed, this is not a reviewer's work, I suggest that the
entire article needs careful revision.
Abstract section
The authors should check the case of all letters and the consistency of punctuation. Some
punctuation marks are missing, this should not be a mistake that a rigorous scientific researcher
should make.
Introduction section
The Previous Results part is too complicated and has weak connection with the article. It is just
a list of researches results. This part should be written in the discussion part.
Method section
The method part looks very confusing. It should be written in several parts, each part
corresponding to the results.
Although the authors use public R packages, the relevant references should be quoted, so that it
can protect developers' intellectual property rights, this is very important.
The authors should resize the font in Figure 1, some of the text is covered by lines.
Results section:
Line 255, the author's explanation for choosing k=2 as the optimal number of clusters is not
clear enough, and a detailed explanation is suggested.
In Figure 3D, how the “high risk” and “low risk” are obtained through PCA, the author needs
to give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 4A, 5A and 5B, the text in the figures is too small to see clearly.
It is suggested to unify the statement of grouping in clustering analysis, group or cluster?
Line 354, the author's description of the results is not rigorous. The results can only show that
the risk score is an independent risk factor, not the four-gene risk markers.
Line 374, as immunosuppressive cells, Treg cells are highly infiltrated in the low-risk group,
and the author did not give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 10, what do the red lines and numbers represent?
The author should make a table containing the risk scores of all patients and put it in the
supplementary files. The supplementary documents only contain the original code but lack the
visual data.
Need to have someone who is an expert on scientific writing in English to proof reading this
manuscript. Some statements were not correctly presented.
Title: Expression patterns and prognostic value of key regulators associated with m7G RNA
modification based on all gene expression in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 06 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Weinan Xue
Reviewer's report:
Summary: The authors explored the expression patterns and established a prognostic model
based on regulators related to m7G RNA modification.
Strength: The predictive effect was validated in an independent cohort.
Limitations:
The analysis results of the authors are all from the public database and limited to the RNA level,
there is a lack of validation in their own colon cancer samples.
There is a lack of experiments in vivo or vitro to explore the molecular function of four-genes
in the model.
Other issues
Abbreviated names only need to be marked when they first appear, such as “LASSO, m7G,
etc.”, other similar errors are no longer listed, this is not a reviewer's work, I suggest that the
entire article needs careful revision.
Abstract section
The authors should check the case of all letters and the consistency of punctuation. Some
punctuation marks are missing, this should not be a mistake that a rigorous scientific researcher
should make.
Introduction section
The Previous Results part is too complicated and has weak connection with the article. It is just
a list of researches results. This part should be written in the discussion part.
Method section
The method part looks very confusing. It should be written in several parts, each part
corresponding to the results.
Although the authors use public R packages, the relevant references should be quoted, so that it
can protect developers' intellectual property rights, this is very important.
The authors should resize the font in Figure 1, some of the text is covered by lines.
Results section:
Line 255, the author's explanation for choosing k=2 as the optimal number of clusters is not
clear enough, and a detailed explanation is suggested.
In Figure 3D, how the “high risk” and “low risk” are obtained through PCA, the author needs
to give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 4A, 5A and 5B, the text in the figures is too small to see clearly.
It is suggested to unify the statement of grouping in clustering analysis, group or cluster?
Line 354, the author's description of the results is not rigorous. The results can only show that
the risk score is an independent risk factor, not the four-gene risk markers.
Line 374, as immunosuppressive cells, Treg cells are highly infiltrated in the low-risk group,
and the author did not give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 10, what do the red lines and numbers represent?
The author should make a table containing the risk scores of all patients and put it in the
supplementary files. The supplementary documents only contain the original code but lack the
visual data.
Need to have someone who is an expert on scientific writing in English to proof reading this
manuscript. Some statements were not correctly presented.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Expression patterns and prognostic value of key regulators associated with m7G RNA
modification based on all gene expression in colon adenocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 06 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Weinan Xue
Reviewer's report:
Summary: The authors explored the expression patterns and established a prognostic model
based on regulators related to m7G RNA modification.
Strength: The predictive effect was validated in an independent cohort.
Limitations:
The analysis results of the authors are all from the public database and limited to the RNA level,
there is a lack of validation in their own colon cancer samples.
There is a lack of experiments in vivo or vitro to explore the molecular function of four-genes
in the model.
Other issues
Abbreviated names only need to be marked when they first appear, such as “LASSO, m7G,
etc.”, other similar errors are no longer listed, this is not a reviewer's work, I suggest that the
entire article needs careful revision.
Abstract section
The authors should check the case of all letters and the consistency of punctuation. Some
punctuation marks are missing, this should not be a mistake that a rigorous scientific researcher
should make.
Introduction section
The Previous Results part is too complicated and has weak connection with the article. It is just
a list of researches results. This part should be written in the discussion part.
Method section
The method part looks very confusing. It should be written in several parts, each part
corresponding to the results.
Although the authors use public R packages, the relevant references should be quoted, so that it
can protect developers' intellectual property rights, this is very important.
The authors should resize the font in Figure 1, some of the text is covered by lines.
Results section:
Line 255, the author's explanation for choosing k=2 as the optimal number of clusters is not
clear enough, and a detailed explanation is suggested.
In Figure 3D, how the “high risk” and “low risk” are obtained through PCA, the author needs
to give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 4A, 5A and 5B, the text in the figures is too small to see clearly.
It is suggested to unify the statement of grouping in clustering analysis, group or cluster?
Line 354, the author's description of the results is not rigorous. The results can only show that
the risk score is an independent risk factor, not the four-gene risk markers.
Line 374, as immunosuppressive cells, Treg cells are highly infiltrated in the low-risk group,
and the author did not give a reasonable explanation.
In Figure 10, what do the red lines and numbers represent?
The author should make a table containing the risk scores of all patients and put it in the
supplementary files. The supplementary documents only contain the original code but lack the
visual data.
Need to have someone who is an expert on scientific writing in English to proof reading this
manuscript. Some statements were not correctly presented.
assistant