A Blueprint for Cancer-Related Inflammation and Host Innate Immunity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript by Garcia et al. reviews recent literature on Drosophila (fruit fly) cancer models. They focus on tumor-host interactions and the immune aspects of this interaction. The authors do a tremendous job of summarizing the latest findings in this hugely active, fast evolving research area. The review is scholarly and well written, with an interesting unifying thesis. I only have minor comments and corrections that I hope the authors find useful.

Line 2: cancer-related

Line 7: Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies

Line 10: black box

Line 36: has long been OR has recently emerged, can’t be both.

Line 46: evolutionarily

Line 58: protect the host from infections

Line 78: AMPs

Line 84: constitute ~5%

Line 97: tissue-resident

Line 105: PTEN deficient cells

Line 119: This sentence feels out of place

Line 123: in… in… in… / Please, rephrase.

Line 129: For discovery of Eiger, Igaki et al., 2002 should be cited in addition to Moreno et al., 2002.

Line 150: distant organs

 Line 212: although it does not

Line 216: 3. Cachexia

Line 217: 3.1

Line 238: Ilp8 was discovered independently by two groups IN SCREENS to identify

Line 240: Garelli et al. … / Please, explain better and rephrase.

Line 264: 3.2

Line 296: 3.3

Line 320: However, although if… / Please, rephrase.

Line 323: expression of Upd/IL-6 cytokines is elevated in Drosophila neoplastic tumours / prior work from Tian Xu’s lab could be cited for this.

Line 331: distant tissues

Table 1 is not cited in the text. Is there any reason Upd cytokines are not included in this table? How about MMPs (Uhlirova et al., 2006; Srivastava et al., 2007)?

Line 410: … considering how different dietary components that tumour cells have heterogeneous nutritional requirements. / Please, rephrase.

Line 430: distant tissues

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is very interesting and timely. However, it is very difficult to read and the organizational logic is sometimes quite confusing.  Section headings are mis-numbered, and sometime headings for a new section cover a topic that has been discussed in the previous section (e.g., on cachexia).  I suggest that the authors revise the ms. with particular attention to logic, flow and grammar and sentence structure, to make it easier for the reader to follow and understand the issues being discussed.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript, and it is now very suitable for publication and will be a terrific contribution to the literature.