MicroRNA and mRNA Expression Changes in Glioblastoma Cells Cultivated under Conditions of Neurosphere Formation
, Natalia S. Vasileva 1, Elena V. Kuligina 1, Yulya I. Savinovskaya 1, Nikita D. Zinchenko 1, Alisa B. Ageenko 1, Sergey V. Mishinov 2, Grigory A. Stepanov 1, Vladimir A. Richter 1 and Dmitry V. Semenov 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the authors disclose that changes in the expression of micro-RNAs (miRNAs) and their target mRNAs in Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells under conditions of Neurospheres (NS) formation obtained from both immortalized U87 MG and patient-derived BR3 GBM cell cultures. The miRNA and mRNA signatures of immortalized U87 MG and patient-derived glioblastoma BR3 that are differentially expressed during the transition from adherent to neurosphere cell cultures were also determined. This topic is interesting and important to provide the basis for the development of new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of GBM. This work was well organized and detailed analysis. English language and style are well spell in this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.
Comments from Reviewer 1
In this work, the authors disclose that changes in the expression of micro-RNAs (miRNAs) and their target mRNAs in Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells under conditions of Neurospheres (NS) formation obtained from both immortalized U87 MG and patient-derived BR3 GBM cell cultures. The miRNA and mRNA signatures of immortalized U87 MG and patient-derived glioblastoma BR3 that are differentially expressed during the transition from adherent to neurosphere cell cultures were also determined. This topic is interesting and important to provide the basis for the development of new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of GBM. This work was well organized and detailed analysis. English language and style are well spell in this paper.
Response:
We are grateful to the reviewer for insightful comments on our paper. We thank the editors for considering our work for publication. We highlighted (yellow highlighted text) all changes made when revising the manuscript to make it easier for the Editors to give a prompt decision on manuscript.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Dmitry V. Semenov PhD
Associate Professor in Biochemistry
Senior researcher
Laboratory of Biotechnology
Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine SB RAS
(ICHBFM SB RAS)
Russian Federation, 630090, Novosibirsk, Lavrent'ev ave., 8
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
1-The manuscript requires a substantial English editing
2-The quality of figures (especially 6 and 7) is low, please promote resolution on 300 dpi.
3-Numbers smaller than 10, should better be written in their alphabetic forms. All the units should be written in a uniform manner.
4-Related published works should be added and cited: https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00699
5-The discussion section could be better by more comparisons with other previous studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Response to Comments from Reviewer 2
1-The manuscript requires a substantial English editing
Response. The manuscript has been edited by a native English speaker, so we hope it now meets the journal's standard.
2-The quality of figures (especially 6 and 7) is low, please promote resolution on 300 dpi.
Response. Corrected. We have promoted the resolution of figures up to 1200 dpi.
3-Numbers smaller than 10, should better be written in their alphabetic forms. All the units should be written in a uniform manner.
Response. Corrected.
4-Related published works should be added and cited: https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00699
Response. Corrected. We added mentioned above related published works.
5-The discussion section could be better by more comparisons with other previous studies.
Response. We agree with the reviewer. We added several sentences to the discussion section about earlier published works (yellow highlighted text).
We highlighted (yellow highlighted text) all changes made when revising the manuscript to make it easier for the Editors to give a prompt decision on manuscript. We thank the editors for considering our work for publication.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Dmitry V. Semenov PhD
Associate Professor in Biochemistry
Senior researcher
Laboratory of Biotechnology
Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine SB RAS
(ICHBFM SB RAS)
Russian Federation, 630090, Novosibirsk, Lavrent'ev ave., 8
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
