Feline Alimentary Lymphomas: Established Concepts and an Underexplored Molecular Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I would suggest a figure with feline lymphoma classification, please provide human counterparts where possible as well as the prevalence.
2. Capitalised gene symboles should be used for human genes only
3. How about microbiome studies in IBD/SCL cats?
4. "Despite broad immunophenotyping" - from the fragments above I cannot see any deep immunophenotyping. Those are some basic T/B/NK cell markers. This is understandable, since there are signfiicant barriers for feline flow cytometry - one being relatively high cost, the other being poor availability of feline-specific flow cytometry antibodies. This is an important barrier since wide use of broader FC panels could quickly facilitate better understanding and diagnosis of feline lymphoproliferative diseases. 
5. "Another research team, using IHC, demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of cells positively immunolabeled for Bcl-2 in cats with AL compared to those with IBD, which may serve as a potential disease discriminator" - more importantly, this could serve as a potential drug target - see venetoclax
6. 5-10% difference in protein sequence is a relatively huge one. Only a few genes/proteins from the table show real resemblance of their human counterparts.
7. Is there an association between diet and AL risk?

Author Response

 

 

   

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I really appreciate your tremendous effort you did for this review in a very cutting-edge topic of feline lymphoma, but for objective reasons, from my point of view, the manuscript, before to be accepted for publication, it must be re-written properly, to make this more inciting for the scientists (because there already published a plethora of paper and studies), and please bear in mind just a few remarks (not an exhaustive list):

1. In this review are included a lot of information, not really connected with the title, please change the title, and please harmonize the content with the title ( or title with the section of review):

-or erase the first 4 sections (these are not connecting with „ Molecular ……lymphoma- ……”

-or adapt the title to the content

2. The aim of this review must be more clearly precised with appropriate remarks

3.Key words: too many words, please keep just the most significant for the study, do not repeat one word so  many   times(lymphoma is  4 times repeted out of 10 key words); some key words are apparently not connected with the title, please adjust.

4.At the and as a Conclusions section, please emphasize what you concluded by this review;

Author Response

 

   

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am happy with the deep revision you did for this Review, and really appreciate your tremendous effort to accurately revise this manuscript. The manuscript is ready to be accepted for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are really glad to know that You find our article interesting and well-written.

According to Your suggestion, we added a missing semicolon in the keywords section.

Once again, we want to thank You for reviewing our paper.

With best regards,

Łukasz Szafron