Transcriptomic Profiles of Normal Pituitary Cells and Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumor Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review “Transcriptomic Profiles of Normal Pituitary Cells and Pituitary 2 Neuroendocrine Tumor Cells” by Oh et. al. provides a comprehensive view of pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). It neatly summarizes the recent advancement made in the field of transcriptome profile characterization of the normal and diseased state pituitary gland and their significance. It’s a translationally interesting review to gain a understanding of transcriptomic landscape of PitNETs.

 

The review can be accepted in its current form. Minor changes associated with reference number style in the text and italicized lines at several places throughout the text should be checked before publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachement 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Oh et al wrote a clear, simple, easy to read, and balanced review on the advances brought by single cell transcriptomic in the pituitary field, specifically for obtaining detailed gene expression profiles of individual pituitary cell types. Their review summarizes well the current standing of the field, the advances and challenges remaining. It is not exhaustive, but it gives a nice overview with clear examples. They start with a description of normal pituitary cell types and move later to differences seen in pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). They highlight some of the key transcription factors (TFs), genes, and mutations that drive pituitary cell types in health and disease. They included recent studies in the field and the use of the literature was appropriate. It is well-written and the figures are clear and well-done.

 

I have only a few minor comments for the authors:

 

1.     The authors describe many genes/TFs upregulated/downregulated in normal vs. diseased pituitary cell types. It may be useful for the readers to provide a table summarizing these.

2.     Line 108 has a typo, POUF1 should be POU1F1.

3.     Line 150: ‘gonadotrophs’ should be somatotrophs.

4.     At two instances in the manuscript the text is switched to italics. The authors should correct that. Refer to lines 444-454 and lines 514-516.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx