The Microbiota in Cancer: A Secondary Player or a Protagonist?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper entitled “The Microbiome in Cancer: A Secondary Player or a Protagonist” is well-written and provides a comprehensive overview of the subject, although in a somewhat superficial manner. To enhance the paper's impact, the authors are encouraged to delve deeper into the discussion in paragraph 7, as it is crucial to the paper's success.

MAJOR REVISION

 

• Line 40: Clarify the concept of “reduced vital organ size”; what do the authors mean by this?
• Lines 55-72: The sentences are generic and disconnected.
• Lines 64-70: Introduce the concept of dysbiosis in both physiological and pathological conditions.
• Lines 69-72: Elaborate on the role of the microbiome in neurological aspects with 3-4 additional sentences.
• Lines 101-106: Provide more information about the imbalance with other phyla.
• Lines 131-140: Expand on the concept of cancer-related dysbiosis.
• Lines 141-150: Indicate which phyla are most responsible for producing butyric acid and discuss the protective role of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs).
• Lines 165-200: Rewrite the entire paragraph for logical coherence. Discuss the use of antibiotics and their impact on the microbiota first, followed by the effects of chemotherapeutics, highlighting how the microbiota changes in response to chemotherapy.
• Lines 247-252: Expand on the role of SCFAs and butyric acid in lymphocyte populations.
• Lines 253-257: Provide examples of substances or molecules that are positively active in this context.
• Lines 265-275:

Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rewrite and merge these paragraphs for clarity and coherence.

Paragraph 6: Avoid using subparagraphs. Make the paragraph more discursive and homogeneous.

• Paragraph 6.2: Delete this section or incorporate it into other paragraphs.
• Paragraphs 6.3 / 6.4 / 6.5: Provide a deeper analysis of all interactions with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The current content is approximate and superficial. These paragraphs are essential for understanding the review and adding an innovative touch.

By addressing these points, the paper can significantly improve its depth and coherence, making it a more valuable contribution to the field.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is acceptable

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided for our manuscript entitled "The Microbiome in Cancer: A Secondary Player or a Protagonist." Your comments have been invaluable in guiding us to enhance the depth and coherence of our paper.

We have analyzed and modified each point, following your recommendations. We hope that this way the paper has significantly improved in depth and coherence, making it a more valuable contribution to the field.

The changes made have been highlighted in red, and the deleted parts have been struck through.

We thank you again for your valuable feedback and hope that the revised manuscript meets the high standards of the journal.

Sincerely.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a review aricle reporting the connection bewtween cancer and human microbiota.The authors state the multiple functions of the microbiota and conclude that microbiota manipulation could enhance cancer treatment. other factors such as diet ,environment etc should be discussed.Yet, bacteria genus and phylum are in capital letters ,this is very unusual.Also, bacterial names are not written in italics through the text.

Plesase correct these issues.

The paper could be accepted after correction of the above issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "The Microbiome in Cancer: A Secondary Player or a Protagonist." Your comments have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have addressed each of your concerns as follows:

We have expanded the discussion to include other significant factors such as diet and environmental influences on the human microbiota and their potential impact on cancer treatment. This additional information provides a more comprehensive overview of the multifaceted interactions affecting the microbiome and cancer.

We have carefully reviewed and corrected all instances where the bacterial genus and phylum were incorrectly capitalized. Additionally, we have ensured that all bacterial names are consistently written in italics throughout the manuscript, following the standard scientific nomenclature.

The changes made have been highlighted in yellow.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations and enhance the manuscript's depth and coherence. We hope the paper is now a more valuable contribution to the field, and we look forward to your further comments or approval.

Thank you again for your thorough review and constructive feedback.

Sincerely.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and provides a thorough analysis of the symbiotic relationship between the intestinal microbiota and the human body. It highlights the roles of the microbiota in digestion, metabolism, lymphoid tissue development, and defense mechanisms. The discussion on dysbiosis and its impact on oncogenesis, tumor progression, and treatment response is insightful. The manuscript effectively points out that manipulating the microbiota could enhance cancer treatment by influencing the activity and side effects of antineoplastic drugs through immunological pathways. This exploration of potential therapeutic applications is commendable. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback on our manuscript entitled "The Microbiome in Cancer: A Secondary Player or a Protagonist." We are grateful for your recognition of our work and for highlighting the strengths of our analysis. Thank you once again for your thorough review and supportive comments.

Sincerely.