Experimental Murine Models for Colorectal Cancer Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study by Neto et al. is a comprehensive study to review the animal models of CRC. The manuscript is well-organized and well-written with good and representative tables, although the figure lacks the same quality. Generally, I recommend the study for acceptance, although several comments are recommended for the authors
1- The abstract requires focus to clearly present the study's aim, results, and future perspectives
2- In the introduction, the authors should review the currently accessible animal models, properties, generation, and shortcomings.
3-Tables are comprehensive and informative. The body of the manuscript requires no further revision. However, the manuscript seems too long, among a lot amount of materials some information may be ignored or summarized in tables
4- At least one other figure is recommended to represent the identity, differences, and applications of those models
5- Unlike the body of the manuscript, the conclusion and future perspectives are short not enough to reflect the mission of the study
Author Response
This study by Neto et al. is a comprehensive study to review the animal models of CRC. The manuscript is well-organized and well-written with good and representative tables, although the figure lacks the same quality. Generally, I recommend the study for acceptance, although several comments are recommended for the authors
1- The abstract requires focus to clearly present the study's aim, results, and future perspectives.
Author’s response: Thank you for your feedback. We really appreciate your suggestion to improve the clarity and focus of the abstract. Thus, we revised the abstract to ensure that it provides a clear and concise summary of the study.
2- In the introduction, the authors should review the currently accessible animal models, properties, generation, and shortcomings.
Author’s response: We revised the introduction to include a comprehensive review of the existing animal models, their characteristics, and shortcomings. Specifically, we discussed the various animal models used in the field, their shortcomings, and the different methods used to generate these models. We strongly believe that our updated section provides now a more comprehensive and informative overview of the current state of animal models in colorectal cancer research.
3-Tables are comprehensive and informative. The body of the manuscript requires no further revision. However, the manuscript seems too long, among a lot amount of materials some information may be ignored or summarized in tables
Author’s response: We are pleased to hear that the tables are comprehensive and informative. The manuscript was revised in terms of length. The scientific content was maintained.
4- At least one other figure is recommended to represent the identity, differences, and applications of those models
Author’s response: Following the referee’s suggestion, an additional figure was added and it illustrates the similarities and differences between the animal models and their specific applications. Thank you for this constructive comment.
5- Unlike the body of the manuscript, the conclusion and future perspectives are short not enough to reflect the mission of the study
Author’s response: We agree with this comment. The conclusion and future perspectives section is a crucial part of the manuscript, and it should effectively summarize the main findings and implications of the study, as well as provide directions for future research. Thus, we revised it accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
This review article was very informational. It was well written, comprehensive, easy to follow.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
1- This review article was very informational. It was well written, comprehensive, easy to follow.
Author’s response: Thank you for your positive feedback on our review article.
Reviewer 3 Report
The review article is on colorectal cancer, one of the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. Animal models used to study colorectal cancer are presented and discussed.
Specific points:
1. The review is based on the papers published by November 2022. About half a year passed now, and it would be beneficial to update the literature search with papers from 2023. There are two references to 2023 items, however, as the text states, the primary literature search was made last year.
2. Some paragraphs are too long. Shorter paragraphs are beneficial for presentation and for readers.
3. Line 141. "p.o." is not introduced yet.
4. Kindly proofread the manuscript for consistency and typos. E.g., b.w. vs bw, extra or missing dots or spaces, etc.
5. Table 3. Kindly proofread the title and the table; try to align the first/headline.
6. The Conclusions are too long. The longer text is expected to be in the Discussion section, while conclusions can be more concise, sharp, and bullet-points
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The review article is on colorectal cancer, one of the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. Animal models used to study colorectal cancer are presented and discussed.
Specific points:
- The review is based on the papers published by November 2022. About half a year passed now, and it would be beneficial to update the literature search with papers from 2023. There are two references to 2023 items, however, as the text states, the primary literature search was made last year.
Author’s response: We appreciate your suggestion to update our literature search with papers published in 2023. We agree that it would be beneficial to include the latest research and findings in our review. Consequently, we conducted an additional search to identify any relevant papers published in 2023 and updated accordingly.
- Some paragraphs are too long. Shorter paragraphs are beneficial for presentation and for readers.
Author’s response: We completely agree that shorter paragraphs can improve the overall flow and readability of the text. Following this constructive comment, all manuscript was revised accordingly.
- Line 141. "p.o." is not introduced yet.
Author’s response: Thank you for bringing to our attention. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and we revised and changed the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are properly introduced before they are used.
- Kindly proofread the manuscript for consistency and typos. E.g., b.w. vs bw, extra or missing dots or spaces, etc.
Author’s response: We have carefully proofread the manuscript made the necessary changes to ensure consistency throughout. We have also corrected any typos, including extra or missing dots and spaces.
- Table 3. Kindly proofread the title and the table; try to align the first/headline.
Author’s response: We appreciate this suggestion to proofread Table 3, including the title and the alignment of the first/headline. Strictly following the reviewer’s suggestion, we revised it.
- The Conclusions are too long. The longer text is expected to be in the Discussion section, while conclusions can be more concise, sharp, and bullet-points
Author’s response: The length of this section was carefully revised considering both comments of the two reviewers. Honestly, we would like to use bullet-points as suggested but, considering the guidelines or the journal, we are not sure if the editorial manager will allow it.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors have addressed the suggestions of the reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly. The presentation of the manuscript is changed which should be beneficial for the readers.
Optional. Kindly check Table 3, first/head line. The sub-titles are still not aligned, although it is not easy given the different number of lines.
