Colorectal Cancer Archaeome: A Metagenomic Exploration, Tunisia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript.

 

This study addresses a current topic.

 

The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English should be improved.

Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.

The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.

 

We suggest the following modifications:

·      Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting, we believe the systemic, evolving treatment scenario for colorectal cancer should be further discussed and some recently published papers added within the introduction ( PMID: 32762027 ; PMID: 32684988; PMID: 36368251.), only for a matter of consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.

·      Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.

·      Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it would be extremely interesting for the readers.

 

However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well balanced.

 

One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the last part of the Discussion.

 

We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although some revisions are needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.

 

We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency. Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A linguistic revision is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the author 

 

1.   Explain the abbreviation where you mentioning as first time in the manuscript.

2.   Provide the clear and standard graphical representation for figures (1,2,4,5,6 &7).

3.    If possible, stain the Halobacteria in tissue section and compare the normal and CRC samples?

4.   Please mention which part of the colon have you taken the samples for histology fixing?

5.   Provide some evidence that talks about normal vs CRC condition of the patients?

6.   Provide the human ethical clearance certificate number in the manuscript

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Acceptance.