Next Article in Journal
Combined Assessment of Immune Checkpoint Regulator VISTA on Tumor-Associated Immune Cells and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Identifies Advanced Germ Cell Tumors with Higher Risk of Unfavorable Outcomes
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploiting Clonal Evolution to Improve the Diagnosis and Treatment Efficacy Prediction in Pediatric AML
Previous Article in Journal
Colon Fibroblasts and Inflammation: Sparring Partners in Colorectal Cancer Initiation?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Detection of Structural Variants in Circulating Cell-Free DNA from Sarcoma Patients Using Next Generation Sequencing
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Next Generation Sequencing Technology in the Clinic and Its Challenges

Cancers 2021, 13(8), 1751; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081751
by Lau K. Vestergaard 1, Douglas N. P. Oliveira 1, Claus K. Høgdall 2 and Estrid V. Høgdall 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Cancers 2021, 13(8), 1751; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13081751
Submission received: 9 March 2021 / Revised: 30 March 2021 / Accepted: 5 April 2021 / Published: 7 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Next Generation Sequencing Application in Cancer Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a clinical meaningful review of the NGS analysis flow for genomic analysis. They mainly focus on the sequencing, alignment, and variant calling. This review is very informative, but there are a few comments that the authors could improve on.

1. The Table2 looks poor. It would be better to include genes at higher levels of evidence such as EGFR mutations in lung cancer. This reviewer guess you could refer to OncoKB and others.


2. The authors describe alignment and variant calling in the 5.3 Bioinformatics section. The reader may detect CNAs as well as SNV in the genetic profiling testing. In general, the detection of CNAs by NGS is more difficult than SNV detection, and the method needs improvement. A description of how to detect CNA would be very useful to the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is an interesting review on next generation sequencing in cancer and personalized medicine.

I recommend publication subject to a minor revision based on the comments below:

  • I suggest revision of English language. There are some typos all over the text.
  • Some acronyms are not explained (e.g. PCR line 63).
  • Lines 68-70, I would suggest to put a brief description of how NGS technology  works and also on the main features of Illumina and Ion Torrent, together with the corresponding citations. Otherwise Table 1 is hard to understand for a non-expert reader.
  • Table 1: please explain the terms in parenthesis (bp, h and gb).
  • Figure 1 is a little confusing.  It could be better ordered in order to obtain a clearer scheme.
  • Figure 2 makes it difficult to follow the links with the other elements of the graph.
  • The conclusion section can be extended with a summary of the previous paragraphs.
 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop