Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal squamous cell cancer and non -transformed 
esophageal epithelium: a matched case control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Shiro  Oka 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I reviewed with interest the article entitled "Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal 
squamous cell cancer and non -transformed esophageal epithelium: a matched c ase control 
study". In this article, the authors examined expression of 4genes using IHC and qRT -PCR. This 
study demonstrates that protein levels of all leukotriene receptors were significantly increased in 
ESCC compared to control muosa. In addition, thei r findings revealed that CYSLTR1 and 
CYSLTR2 expression was decreased in cancer tissue compared to control at 0.26 -fole and 0.23 -
fold. This study is interesting, however, have few problems. My suggestions are as follows:  
 
 
Major Comments  
 
1. In immunohistoch emical staining and cell count, the authors investigated, "For LTB4R, 
LTB4R2, CYSLTR1 and CYSLTR2, the staining intensity (SI) and the percentage of positive 
cells (PP) were scored as followed: SI was classified in 0 (no staining), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) 
and 3 (strong); PP: 0 (no positive cells), 1 (< 10%), 2 (10 -50%), 3 (51 - 80%), 4 (> 80%)". The 
authors should showed typical figures of each score.  
 
2. The authors should be showed background of ESCC patients using figures or tables.  
 
3. The authors had bet ter to examined knockdown assay using si -RNA.  
 
 
Minor Comments  
 
4. In Figure2, What indicated dots and asterisks?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, plea se specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the dat a shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organiz ation that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have a ny non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interest s 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will b e posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal squamous cell cancer and non -transformed 
esophageal epithelium: a matched case control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Shiro  Oka 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I reviewed with interest the article entitled "Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal 
squamous cell cancer and non -transformed esophageal epithelium: a matched c ase control 
study". In this article, the authors examined expression of 4genes using IHC and qRT -PCR. This 
study demonstrates that protein levels of all leukotriene receptors were significantly increased in 
ESCC compared to control muosa. In addition, thei r findings revealed that CYSLTR1 and 
CYSLTR2 expression was decreased in cancer tissue compared to control at 0.26 -fole and 0.23 -
fold. This study is interesting, however, have few problems. My suggestions are as follows:  
 
 
Major Comments  
 
1. In immunohistoch emical staining and cell count, the authors investigated, "For LTB4R, 
LTB4R2, CYSLTR1 and CYSLTR2, the staining intensity (SI) and the percentage of positive 
cells (PP) were scored as followed: SI was classified in 0 (no staining), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) 
and 3 (strong); PP: 0 (no positive cells), 1 (< 10%), 2 (10 -50%), 3 (51 - 80%), 4 (> 80%)". The 
authors should showed typical figures of each score.  
 
2. The authors should be showed background of ESCC patients using figures or tables.  
 
3. The authors had bet ter to examined knockdown assay using si -RNA.  
 
 
Minor Comments  
 
4. In Figure2, What indicated dots and asterisks?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, plea se specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the dat a shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organiz ation that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have a ny non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interest s 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will b e posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal squamous cell cancer and non -transformed 
esophageal epithelium: a matched case control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Shiro  Oka 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I reviewed with interest the article entitled "Leukotriene receptor expression in esophageal 
squamous cell cancer and non -transformed esophageal epithelium: a matched c ase control 
study". In this article, the authors examined expression of 4genes using IHC and qRT -PCR. This 
study demonstrates that protein levels of all leukotriene receptors were significantly increased in 
ESCC compared to control muosa. In addition, thei r findings revealed that CYSLTR1 and 
CYSLTR2 expression was decreased in cancer tissue compared to control at 0.26 -fole and 0.23 -
fold. This study is interesting, however, have few problems. My suggestions are as follows:  
 
 
Major Comments  
 
1. In immunohistoch emical staining and cell count, the authors investigated, "For LTB4R, 
LTB4R2, CYSLTR1 and CYSLTR2, the staining intensity (SI) and the percentage of positive 
cells (PP) were scored as followed: SI was classified in 0 (no staining), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) 
and 3 (strong); PP: 0 (no positive cells), 1 (< 10%), 2 (10 -50%), 3 (51 - 80%), 4 (> 80%)". The 
authors should showed typical figures of each score.  
 
2. The authors should be showed background of ESCC patients using figures or tables.  
 
3. The authors had bet ter to examined knockdown assay using si -RNA.  
 
 
Minor Comments  
 
4. In Figure2, What indicated dots and asterisks?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, plea se specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the dat a shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organiz ation that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have a ny non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interest s 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will b e posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant