Next Article in Journal
Extracellular Vesicles: Messengers of p53 in Tumor–Stroma Communication and Cancer Metastasis
Next Article in Special Issue
The BET Inhibitor OTX015 Exhibits In Vitro and In Vivo Antitumor Activity in Pediatric Ependymoma Stem Cell Models
Previous Article in Journal
A Recent Insight Regarding the Phytochemistry and Bioactivity of Origanum vulgare L. Essential Oil
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Hemispherical Pediatric High-Grade Glioma: Molecular Basis and Therapeutic Opportunities

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(24), 9654; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249654
by Santiago Haase 1,2, Fernando M. Nuñez 1,2, Jessica C. Gauss 1,2, Sarah Thompson 1,2, Emily Brumley 1,2, Pedro Lowenstein 1,2 and Maria G. Castro 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(24), 9654; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249654
Submission received: 21 November 2020 / Revised: 14 December 2020 / Accepted: 15 December 2020 / Published: 17 December 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors of the manuscript present a comprehensive and accurate review of most of the clinical and molecular findings in children with HGG, focusing on the molecular aspects and giving accurate and updated information

I have no specific remarks a part from the excessive length of the manuscript.

Author Response

We have addressed your comment regarding the length of the manuscript, by removing section 5, (pHGG models) which we consider is not essential for the review.

Reviewer 2 Report

This review provides a very good and structured overview of pediatric high grade gliomas. I think that the authors should do more justice to the title passage of the "therapeutic opportunities" by adding a sub-header "Future perspective" or similar to the last section of the very short discussion and present the listed two points in more detail in a larger context. The important information may get lost in the presented amount and so the interested reader will get the essence of the new information (again) in the last section.

Author Response

We acknowledge the reviewer for the positive comments, 

The reviewer states that we should do more justice to the title passage by adding a sub-header "Future perspective" or similar to the discussion section of the very short discussion and present the listed two points in more detail in a larger context. The important information may get lost in the presented amount and so the interested reader will get the essence of the new information (again) in the last section.

 

We improved the discussion section as requested, by adding the subsection "Future perspectives" into the discussion section, and we extended both sections. We also addressed the issue regarding the length of the manuscript, by removing section 5 (pHGG models), which we consider is not essential for the review.

Back to TopTop