Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in the genetic pathway(s) between Vietnamese and Japanese
colorectal cancers
Version:2Date:17 July 2014
Reviewer: Rashmi Prasad
Reviewer's report:
The current study compares somatic K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency
microsatellite instability mutation frequencies between Vietnamese and Japanese
CRC patients.
The strengths of the paper:
1) one of the few studies, possibly one of the first which studies genetic
alterations in the Vietnamese CRCs.
2) there is a significant different between the frequencies of the mutations
studied, suggestive of altered mechanisms for CRC between the two
populations.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) of course, the sample size. Considering that this is a study based on
differences in frequencies between the two populations, a higher sample size
would provide more power to the data. This paper is based on frequencies of
selected mutations in two different populations. It would be relevant to mention
perhaps the frequencies of these mutations in the Japanese population (if
published), and assess if they match with the frequencies obtained in the present
study.
2) It is not clear why these three mutations were specifically selected, why only
K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency microsatellite instability? It would be clearer if
the selection criteria was mentioned while framing the questions this paper
addresses in the introduction itself.
3) ONe of the most important aspects - this paper investigates somatic
mutations, however, the conclusions mention "genetic pathways". This would be
wrong, in the sense that these somatic mutations are restricted, quite possibly to
the cancer cells whereas using the term "genetic pathways" is suggestive of the
involvement of the whole genome.
4) The authors also mention GWAS studies - which investigate primarily genetic
susceptibility, whereas this paper is mainly focused on somatic mutations. This
requires a major revision in phrasing and discussion.
5) This paper needs a stronger discussion and a more specific conclusion.
Discretionary Revisions
Would be interesting if outcomes in both populations could be assessed based
on which mutations they carry. However it is understandable if such data were
unavailable.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The paper refers to Table 1, 2 3 and 4, whereas these are available as
supplementary data.
2) The gel figure A appears are one big continuous band, B as blurred banks and
C as one continuous blurred band. Perhaps a better picture?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in the genetic pathway(s) between Vietnamese and Japanese
colorectal cancers
Version:2Date:17 July 2014
Reviewer: Rashmi Prasad
Reviewer's report:
The current study compares somatic K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency
microsatellite instability mutation frequencies between Vietnamese and Japanese
CRC patients.
The strengths of the paper:
1) one of the few studies, possibly one of the first which studies genetic
alterations in the Vietnamese CRCs.
2) there is a significant different between the frequencies of the mutations
studied, suggestive of altered mechanisms for CRC between the two
populations.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) of course, the sample size. Considering that this is a study based on
differences in frequencies between the two populations, a higher sample size
would provide more power to the data. This paper is based on frequencies of
selected mutations in two different populations. It would be relevant to mention
perhaps the frequencies of these mutations in the Japanese population (if
published), and assess if they match with the frequencies obtained in the present
study.
2) It is not clear why these three mutations were specifically selected, why only
K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency microsatellite instability? It would be clearer if
the selection criteria was mentioned while framing the questions this paper
addresses in the introduction itself.
3) ONe of the most important aspects - this paper investigates somatic
mutations, however, the conclusions mention "genetic pathways". This would be
wrong, in the sense that these somatic mutations are restricted, quite possibly to
the cancer cells whereas using the term "genetic pathways" is suggestive of the
involvement of the whole genome.
4) The authors also mention GWAS studies - which investigate primarily genetic
susceptibility, whereas this paper is mainly focused on somatic mutations. This
requires a major revision in phrasing and discussion.
5) This paper needs a stronger discussion and a more specific conclusion.
Discretionary Revisions
Would be interesting if outcomes in both populations could be assessed based
on which mutations they carry. However it is understandable if such data were
unavailable.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The paper refers to Table 1, 2 3 and 4, whereas these are available as
supplementary data.
2) The gel figure A appears are one big continuous band, B as blurred banks and
C as one continuous blurred band. Perhaps a better picture?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in the genetic pathway(s) between Vietnamese and Japanese
colorectal cancers
Version:2Date:17 July 2014
Reviewer: Rashmi Prasad
Reviewer's report:
The current study compares somatic K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency
microsatellite instability mutation frequencies between Vietnamese and Japanese
CRC patients.
The strengths of the paper:
1) one of the few studies, possibly one of the first which studies genetic
alterations in the Vietnamese CRCs.
2) there is a significant different between the frequencies of the mutations
studied, suggestive of altered mechanisms for CRC between the two
populations.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) of course, the sample size. Considering that this is a study based on
differences in frequencies between the two populations, a higher sample size
would provide more power to the data. This paper is based on frequencies of
selected mutations in two different populations. It would be relevant to mention
perhaps the frequencies of these mutations in the Japanese population (if
published), and assess if they match with the frequencies obtained in the present
study.
2) It is not clear why these three mutations were specifically selected, why only
K-ras, mtDNA and high-frequency microsatellite instability? It would be clearer if
the selection criteria was mentioned while framing the questions this paper
addresses in the introduction itself.
3) ONe of the most important aspects - this paper investigates somatic
mutations, however, the conclusions mention "genetic pathways". This would be
wrong, in the sense that these somatic mutations are restricted, quite possibly to
the cancer cells whereas using the term "genetic pathways" is suggestive of the
involvement of the whole genome.
4) The authors also mention GWAS studies - which investigate primarily genetic
susceptibility, whereas this paper is mainly focused on somatic mutations. This
requires a major revision in phrasing and discussion.
5) This paper needs a stronger discussion and a more specific conclusion.
Discretionary Revisions
Would be interesting if outcomes in both populations could be assessed based
on which mutations they carry. However it is understandable if such data were
unavailable.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The paper refers to Table 1, 2 3 and 4, whereas these are available as
supplementary data.
2) The gel figure A appears are one big continuous band, B as blurred banks and
C as one continuous blurred band. Perhaps a better picture?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant