Reviewer's report
Title:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version: 1Date:31 August 2013
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well-written, and has very interesting findings about the CpG
Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) in gastric cancer. Even though, the
manuscript has some issues that should be clarified before its acceptance.
MINOR REVISION
Page 3, Line 37: substitute the “in” for “an”;
Page 14, Line 267: H3K4-K3K27: is this right? If so, please explain what are the
consequences of this configuration;
Page 17, Line 330: If only one CpG site was evaluated for most genes, what's
the strength of the study? What are the bases to define which CpG site will be
evaluated in each gene and its importance for the gene expression regulation?
Page 18, Lines 363-364: As the authors did not find genes differentially
methylated between HP+ and HP- patients, explain if this could be a limitation of
the technique. The same question may be applied for other clinicopathological
features, such as TNM and histological type.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version: 1Date:31 August 2013
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well-written, and has very interesting findings about the CpG
Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) in gastric cancer. Even though, the
manuscript has some issues that should be clarified before its acceptance.
MINOR REVISION
Page 3, Line 37: substitute the “in” for “an”;
Page 14, Line 267: H3K4-K3K27: is this right? If so, please explain what are the
consequences of this configuration;
Page 17, Line 330: If only one CpG site was evaluated for most genes, what's
the strength of the study? What are the bases to define which CpG site will be
evaluated in each gene and its importance for the gene expression regulation?
Page 18, Lines 363-364: As the authors did not find genes differentially
methylated between HP+ and HP- patients, explain if this could be a limitation of
the technique. The same question may be applied for other clinicopathological
features, such as TNM and histological type.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version: 1Date:31 August 2013
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well-written, and has very interesting findings about the CpG
Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) in gastric cancer. Even though, the
manuscript has some issues that should be clarified before its acceptance.
MINOR REVISION
Page 3, Line 37: substitute the “in” for “an”;
Page 14, Line 267: H3K4-K3K27: is this right? If so, please explain what are the
consequences of this configuration;
Page 17, Line 330: If only one CpG site was evaluated for most genes, what's
the strength of the study? What are the bases to define which CpG site will be
evaluated in each gene and its importance for the gene expression regulation?
Page 18, Lines 363-364: As the authors did not find genes differentially
methylated between HP+ and HP- patients, explain if this could be a limitation of
the technique. The same question may be applied for other clinicopathological
features, such as TNM and histological type.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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