Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The findings are interesting and technically well performed. Specific points that the authors need to address are as follows:

1. Most of the key experiments have been done in MDA-MB-231 cell line. Addition triple negative breast cancer cell lines should be used to validate the key findings of the study.
2. It is not clear that how the loss of WISP2 expression can lead to a significant increase of CYR61 expression.
3. The authors should provide their own justification and relevance of the study. This will help the readers to understand the importance of the paper.
4. The conclusion section should be improved and therapeutic options that can be designed to suppress VM formation in breast cancer should be highlighted.
5. All sections of the manuscript should be checked in terms of typographical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Authors have not mentioned the statistical details in Figure 3 caption. No information about *, ***, ***.
2. Size and resolution of image is poor. Need to replaced with high quality image.
3. Introduction. Author must support the rational and objective of the work design. 
4. Overall the manuscript needs careful revision of error in sentence/superscript/subscript.
5. Rewrite the conclusion with important findings of the study.
6.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf