Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well-written, and the experiments were designed scientifically. Also, current results provide a valuable mechanistic approach that can be used in further studies. But it will also be better if authors provide answers to the questions below;

In figure 1A

 

The authors should revise the figure to a horizontal orientation.

 

In figure 1C

 

It is not clear what the picture stands for (which part of the skin) and ulceration.

 

Authors should avoid making deductions in the results section. They should discuss in the discussion section their hypothesis-related experimental results.

 

Authors should provide mathematical results in terms of numbers and statistical values in the results section.

 

 

In Figure 4C, D and E

 

Authors should put asterisks to somewhere else make it easier for readers.

 

 

Authors should provide a reference for their induction of the tumor model

 

Authors should provide a reference for their histopathological scoring.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The authors state that the data was collected from both male and female mice. Can they clarify if the data obtained from figure 2 to figure 7 was combining both the genders?

 

 

2.Did the authors observe any significant differences between the two genders with papilloma development and the immune profile? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx