Next Article in Journal
Use of Publication Dynamics to Distinguish Cancer Genes and Bystander Genes
Next Article in Special Issue
Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in Neurofibromatosis Type 1: Identification of Novel and Recurrent NF1 Gene Variants and Correlations with Neurocognitive Phenotype
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of the GDSL Genes in Pecan (Carya illinoensis K. Koch): Phylogeny, Structure, Promoter Cis-Elements, Co-Expression Networks, and Response to Salt Stresses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Robust Prediction of Prognosis and Immunotherapy Response for Bladder Cancer through Machine Learning Algorithm
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Formative Study of the Implementation of Whole Genome Sequencing in Northern Ireland

Genes 2022, 13(7), 1104; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13071104
by Katie Kerr 1,2, Caoimhe McKenna 1,2, Shirley Heggarty 3, Caitlin Bailie 1, Julie McMullan 1, Ashleen Crowe 1, Jill Kilner 1, Michael Donnelly 1, Saralynne Boyle 1, Gillian Rea 2, Cheryl Flanagan 2, Shane McKee 1,2 and Amy Jayne McKnight 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Genes 2022, 13(7), 1104; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13071104
Submission received: 16 May 2022 / Revised: 13 June 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 21 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Human Genomics and Genetic Diseases)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Understanding benefits, perceptions, and barriers to implementation of whole genome sequencing for rare diseases diagnosis from both a patient and health care provider’s perspective is crucial.  The current study provides important insight into the experience of implementing WGS in Northern Ireland.  Overall, the manuscript is well written, the methods and results are described well, and the conclusions and recommendations of the authors are supported by the data. A few minor edits are recommended to improve the overall manuscript. 

Figure 3 is a major component of the manuscript, however, when viewed in printed color format it is difficult to read due to the small size of the text.  This may be amplified if the paper is printed in grayscale or black and white.  I suggest increasing text size or editing length of the quotes for easier readability. 

Throughout the manuscript the authors should ensure that acronyms are spelled fully out at least the first time they are used.  For example, MDT, HCP, MRC, etc.

Please edit for minor grammatical errors and consistency throughout.  For example, the use of periods at the end of sentences in lists, etc. 

Author Response

See the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper by Kerr et al describes an implementation of WGS screening in NI from several years ago.   While it's clearly written, I'm not sure it fits the scope of the journal, as there is no gene- or genome-level data.   The experience shared here would definitely benefit administrators of analogous enterprises but would likely be of little value to the research-orientated readership.   A few points on the contents:   1. The costs seem excessive. Dante Labs provide WGS for some $600, a huge saving. Especially given the ultimate outcome - a letter, which seems to scare some patients, rather than educate them.   2. Logistics seems to be a hurdle. The example of Dante, whereby a saliva sample is self-collected and shipped by a customer, may be educational here.  These aspects need to be discussed.

Author Response

See the attachment (reviewer 2)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

no other comments

Back to TopTop