Targeting Pro-Survival Autophagy Enhanced GSK-3β Inhibition-Induced Apoptosis and Retarded Proliferation in Bladder Cancer Cells
, Vladimir Bilim 1,2, Tsutomu Anraku 1, Hiroo Kuroki 1,3, Akira Kazama 1,4, Masaki Murata 1, Kaede Hiruma 1 and Yoshihiko Tomita 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The data and paper looks interesting. Pease extend the conclusion for this paper. Add descriptive legends to the Figure 1. Based on your study and observation, include some references that has performed similar studies in vitro or in vivo.
Please checked the paper with Grammerly for minor gramatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is absolutely interesting from a practical point of view. The authors should revise the paper based on the following comments.
- The abstract is presented very well.
- The method part is not clear to the reader. The authors should present a theoretical part or model on which they are researching. Then present the different method or methods to investigate this model and then analyze the results. As the article is currently presented, these parts are very poorly presented and not detailed.
- The following papers should be added to the current research:
1: Konac, E., Kurman, Y., & Baltaci, S. (2020). Contrast effects of autophagy in the treatment of bladder cancer. In Experimental Biology and Medicine (Vol. 246, Issue 3, pp. 354–367). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370220959336
2: Nave, Op., Hareli, S., Elbaz, M., Hayim Iluz, I., & Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, S. (2019). BCG and IL - 2 model for bladder cancer treatment with fast and slow dynamics based on SPVF method-stability analysis. In Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering (Vol. 16, Issue 5, pp. 5346–5379). American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS). https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2019267
- Please extended the figure analysis of the results.
- The results presented in the paper look very interesting but they look as no connection between them. Please explain in detail first this connection, and also the results.
- The conclusion section must be extended. 3 lines of the conclusion section for this topic of research are not serious.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the paper again and I can confirm that the authors revised the paper according to my comments.
