Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 3Date:12 November 2012
Reviewer: Lasse Sommer Kristensen
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
Data of gene methylation in cancer lesions of 115 subjects with GC were
included in the study. The abstract has, however, not been updated accordingly.
Several grammatical errors still exists in the manuscript, which need to be
corrected. Some examples:
Page 16, line 13: “The mechanism of carcinogenesis via gene methylation has
been still unclear” should be “”… gene methylation is still unclear”.
Page 16, line 14: “we pay an attention to the fact” should be “we pay attention to
the fact”
In several places in the text it may be better to use “frequency” instead of “ratio”.
Page 16, line 3: “corresponded to a risk” should be “corresponded to an
increased risk”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 3Date:12 November 2012
Reviewer: Lasse Sommer Kristensen
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
Data of gene methylation in cancer lesions of 115 subjects with GC were
included in the study. The abstract has, however, not been updated accordingly.
Several grammatical errors still exists in the manuscript, which need to be
corrected. Some examples:
Page 16, line 13: “The mechanism of carcinogenesis via gene methylation has
been still unclear” should be “”… gene methylation is still unclear”.
Page 16, line 14: “we pay an attention to the fact” should be “we pay attention to
the fact”
In several places in the text it may be better to use “frequency” instead of “ratio”.
Page 16, line 3: “corresponded to a risk” should be “corresponded to an
increased risk”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 3Date:12 November 2012
Reviewer: Lasse Sommer Kristensen
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
Data of gene methylation in cancer lesions of 115 subjects with GC were
included in the study. The abstract has, however, not been updated accordingly.
Several grammatical errors still exists in the manuscript, which need to be
corrected. Some examples:
Page 16, line 13: “The mechanism of carcinogenesis via gene methylation has
been still unclear” should be “”… gene methylation is still unclear”.
Page 16, line 14: “we pay an attention to the fact” should be “we pay attention to
the fact”
In several places in the text it may be better to use “frequency” instead of “ratio”.
Page 16, line 3: “corresponded to a risk” should be “corresponded to an
increased risk”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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