Molecular Profiling of Tumor Tissue in Mexican Patients with Colorectal Cancer
, Jorge Peregrina-Sandoval 2, Miguel Ángel Trujillo-Rojas 1, José Luis Venegas-Rodríguez 1, Rosario Hernández-Ramírez 1, Martha Alejandra Fernández-Galindo 1 and Melva Gutiérrez-Angulo 1,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper aiming to identify novel gene variants in colorectal cancer patients.
Although the data are worth to publish there is a general problem with the four patients that have been selected for analysis.
3 patients have rectal tumors, patient 1 is left sided colon tumor. Two patient have hereditary background. According to the current knowledge in the field they all take another carcinogenesis pathway.
i recommend to repeat the data analysis to get useful and more reliable results..
patients 2-4 have to be compared to patient 1. when combining all 4 patients many genes were excluded because of patient 1. Give a Venn diagram to show overlaps between the patients. Finally consider and compare hereditary versus sporadic.
the patient selection has to be discussed in the Discussion part, clearly comparing rectal and colon signature based on their own data and based on the literature, the authors should exactly define which genes have been identified as novel and they should give this also in the abstract
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present manuscript the authors are checking for genetic variants in tumor tissue from colorectal cancer patients. The subject is of interest for the oncology field and the study presented can give more information in the field, however there are some issues that need to be addressed.
The paper needs to be read querfully. There are some parts were the information is not so clear.
Also, for the introduction section, the authors need to give some more details related to the advantages of their proposed method.
Finally, do the authors have tried to check the same genes for one patient which rcieved a negative results after the biopsy was checked, as a control?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered adequately and sufficiently to the questions. The new discussion part includes very important new information regarding rectal origin of samples.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the changes asked and the quality of the manuscript improved. The manuscript can be published in the present form.
