Next Article in Journal
Theoretical and Experimental Study of Different Side Chains on 3,4-Ethylenedioxythiophene and Diketopyrrolopyrrole-Derived Polymers: Towards Organic Transistors
Next Article in Special Issue
New Insights for an Advanced Understanding of the Molecular Mechanisms in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Previous Article in Journal
Glutathione Reductase Expression and Its Prognostic Significance in Colon Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Role of Cannabinoids in Oral Cancer
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Interaction between CLSPN Gene Polymorphisms and Alcohol Consumption Contributes to Oral Cancer Progression

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(2), 1098; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25021098
by Ming-Ju Hsieh 1,2,3, Yu-Sheng Lo 1, Hsin-Yu Ho 1, Chia-Chieh Lin 1, Yi-Ching Chuang 1 and Mu-Kuan Chen 4,5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(2), 1098; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25021098
Submission received: 3 November 2023 / Revised: 15 January 2024 / Accepted: 15 January 2024 / Published: 16 January 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present manuscript, it indicated that rs535638 and rs7520495 SNPs in Claspin (CLSPN) gene has a risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) by compare the frequency of 4 polymorphisms (rs12058760, rs16822339, rs535638 and rs7520495 SNPs) between controls and OSCC patients. However, the manuscript is not well-written. I recommend that this paper accepted after minor revision.

 

1. It is not well-written about 4 polymorphisms (rs12058760, rs16822339, rs535638 and rs7520495 SNPs. Does these SNPs affect the protein or expression of CLSPN? Also, it is better to mention the minor allele frequency (MAF) of 4 SNPs.

 

2. It is unclear to focus these 4 SNPs. It should mention about the reason.

 

3. In line 113-114, it mentioned that after adjusting for the risks associated with smoking, eating betel nuts and drinking alcohol factors, we were able to estimate. However, it is not well-written about the adjusting method.  

 

4. Many CLSPN are written incorrectly in CLSNP.

 

5. An incorrect line on Betel nut chewing in Table 1 has been added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Although there is a lot of work done behind the manuscript entitled "Variations in CLSPN polymorphisms are associated with increased risk of oral cancer in drinkers", it looks like a draft and needs major revision before resubmission.

Here are my recommendations:

Line 49: The following statement is incorrect and should be revisited with care: "the most common type of cancer in men". Also"approximately 10% of patients dying within six months of diagnosis and high mortality rates in advanced 50 stages" refers to one nationwide study, not a worldwide evaluation.

Line 68: Reference 18 was not published in.." published in Xenopus oocyte extracts"

Lines 93: There is a mistake in the manuscript workflow After the Introduction, there is Results Chapter. Materials and methods chapter starts with line 294.

Line 105: In Table 1 can you detail why the study population was divided by age 54?

Line 182: The Legend of Figure 1 contains the Aim of the study.

Line 299 Can you detail the selection of the control-group ? Were all these patients cancer-free regarding the oral cavity or the whole body?

Lines 311-313 As this is a part of the Material and Methods chapter it is expected to describe the method, not to state some results and an Internet link with no connection.

Lines 315-316: The description of the methods needs to be detailed in this manuscript . "Similar to our previous research, we used  extraction, preservation, and analysis techniques" 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

overall a good study. However, the presentation specially the tables must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has been corrected and I recommend its acceptance.

Best regards!

Author Response

Thank you for your comment

Back to TopTop