Next Article in Journal
Imidazole-Based Ionic Liquids with BF4 as the Counterion Perform Outstanding Abilities in Both Inhibiting Clay Swelling and Lowing Water Cluster Size
Next Article in Special Issue
K-Mer Analyses Reveal Different Evolutionary Histories of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Papillomaviruses
Previous Article in Journal
More Is Always Better Than One: The N-Terminal Domain of the Spike Protein as Another Emerging Target for Hampering the SARS-CoV-2 Attachment to Host Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of HPV Integrations in Mexican Pre-Tumoral Cervical Lesions Reveal Centromere-Enriched Breakpoints and Abundant Unspecific HPV Regions
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Genetic and Epigenetic Variations of HPV52 in Cervical Precancer

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(12), 6463; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126463
by Katharine J. Bee 1,2,†, Ana Gradissimo 1,†, Zigui Chen 1,3, Ariana Harari 1, Mark Schiffman 4, Tina Raine-Bennett 5, Philip E. Castle 4,6,7, Megan Clarke 4, Nicolas Wentzensen 4 and Robert D. Burk 1,6,8,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(12), 6463; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126463
Submission received: 24 May 2021 / Revised: 10 June 2021 / Accepted: 11 June 2021 / Published: 16 June 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very well written article. The material and methods section is well described and sound and results are derived from a well described cohort using a nested cohort design.  This work is complete and draws interesting conclusions in line with published work.

Very minor changes would be required. 

1) On page 3, the authors state in the 2.1 paragraph that levels of HPV52 methylation in women with CIN3 were compared to levels in women wihtout lesion. However, the control group could include women with CIN1. Was this the case?

2) Considering figure 3, did some variations shared by different sublineages and if so, how was this taken into account?

3) Considering figure 3, to which sublineage belonged dits with ORs at ± 2.0

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is solid and well designed, organized, and written.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the positive feedback from the reviewer.

Back to TopTop