Next Article in Journal
External Hemin as an Inhibitor of Mitochondrial Large-Conductance Calcium-Activated Potassium Channel Activity
Next Article in Special Issue
GDPD5 Related to Lipid Metabolism Is a Potential Prognostic Biomarker in Neuroblastoma
Previous Article in Journal
Ligand-Dependent Downregulation of Guanylyl Cyclase/Natriuretic Peptide Receptor-A: Role of miR-128 and miR-195
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Intratumor Bacterial and Fungal Microbiome Is Characterized by HPV, Smoking, and Alcohol Consumption in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

METCAM/MUC18 Plays a Tumor Suppressor Role in the Development of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Type I

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(21), 13389; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113389
by Yen-Chun Liu 1, Yu-Jen Chen 2 and Guang-Jer Wu 1,3,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(21), 13389; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113389
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 30 October 2022 / Published: 2 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Molecular Oncology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The grammar of the text needs to be edited

2. Reorganize according to Instructions for Authors

3. Insufficient resolution of images

4. The content structure needs to be rearranged and adjusted

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The manuscript contains too many sentences or paragraphs copied from the author’s previously published papers (reference 16), including almost the entire Introduction section, the methods section 2.1 and 2.2, etc.

 

2.The introduction structure needs to be redesigned.

d. The last paragraph of the introduction mentioned that NPC-TW04 was promoted by enforced expression of huMETCAM/MUC18, in complete contrast to NPC-TW01. It is interesting. But what are the mechanisms of huMETCAM/MUC18 expression on NPC cells, what are the differences, and what causes the opposite expression? It could be commented in the discussion section.

4. What are the main differences between this manuscript and reference 16, and what are the new findings of this study?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been substantially revised. I have no more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

None.

Back to TopTop