Imbalance of B-Cell Subpopulations in the Microenvironment of Sarcoidosis or Lung Cancer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

 

The manuscript addresses an important topic, it is well-written, clear concise although addressing a complex topic.

Abstract

The abstract is very well written. It presents the manuscript perfectly.

Introduction

The introduction is short but makes the context of the study,

All words in Latim must be written in italic, words such in vivo, ex vivo, in vitro, et al., versus, vs authors must verify all manuscript and correct.

Authors use abbreviations, without previously being written fully and after between brackets the acronym. DLCO an example, please check all manuscript.

 

Authors in line 114 use several abbreviations that appear later on M&M line 165, please rewrite, them so readers have all the necessary information in the right place of the paper.

 

Authors should state the study limitations.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1
The manuscript addresses an important topic, it is well-written, clear concise although addressing a complex topic.

Abstract: The abstract is very well written. It presents the manuscript perfectly.

Introduction: The introduction is short but makes the context of the study,

All words in Latim must be written in italic, words such in vivo, ex vivo, in vitro, et al., versus, vs authors must verify all manuscript and correct.

Authors use abbreviations, without previously being written fully and after between brackets the acronym. DLCO an example, please check all manuscript.

Authors in line 114 use several abbreviations that appear later on M&M line 165, please rewrite, them so readers have all the necessary information in the right place of the paper.

Authors should state the study limitations.

 

ANSWER Reviewer 1

We are grateful for all valuable comments.

Thank you for your comment assessing our Abstract and Introduction.

Latin words have been changed and italicized.

The authors have improved the writing of abbreviations so that explanations appear before the abbreviations appear.

The authors have changed the notation of abbreviations that were in line 114 (now 156 line) and which appear later in line 165 in Table 2 (now 202 line) so that readers have all the necessary information in the right place.

The authors completed the discussion and provided limitations of the study at the end.

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for constructive criticisms and valuable feedback which helps us to revise our manuscript.

We have carefully taken into consideration all remarks and comments. Any revisions to the manuscript were marked up using the “Track Changes” function MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the Reviewer.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting topic and ideea.

Some methodology issues should be discussed

- the HC group seems imbalanced (gender)

- It might be important to note if the results pertain to positive lymph nodes especially for LC subgroup (although this could be relevant for SA also)

- were the EBUS aspirates from tumor mass considered in the results section

- the SCLC and NSCLC have somewhat different biological mechanisms for lymph node invasion and systemic impact – this should probably be covered in the discussion section

- the lung function testing data seem redundant since the sarcoidosis group was not stratified; furthermore it would be particularly interesting to analyze various sarcoidosis phenotypes

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor spelling errors

Ex Table 1

‘SA patients characeristic’

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting topic and ideea.

Some methodology issues should be discussed

- the HC group seems imbalanced (gender)

- It might be important to note if the results pertain to positive lymph nodes especially for LC subgroup (although this could be relevant for SA also)

- were the EBUS aspirates from tumor mass considered in the results section

- the SCLC and NSCLC have somewhat different biological mechanisms for lymph node invasion and systemic impact – this should probably be covered in the discussion section

- the lung function testing data seem redundant since the sarcoidosis group was not stratified; furthermore it would be particularly interesting to analyze various sarcoidosis phenotypes

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor spelling errors Ex Table 1 ‘SA patients characeristic’

ANSWER Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for all comments and suggestions.

• We agree that the HC group seems unbalanced (gender), in this study we do not have the opportunity to increase the HC group and diversify it, but we will definitely take this into account in future studies.
• Only positive lymph nodes for both LC and SA were included in the study, this sentence was added for clarity of the study in the methodology (Line: 214).
• In 6 patients, EBUS from the tumor mass was included, and this is indicated in Table 1 Characterizing the study group. However, these patients were not analysed separately due to the small group. We will take this into account in future research to separate such a group and analyse it separately.
• We agree with the comment that SCLC and NSCLC have slightly different biological mechanisms of lymph node invasion and systemic effects. In this study, due to the relatively small number of patients studied, we did not divide them into SCLC and NSCLC (this was indicated in the limitations of the study). We added a comment regarding the differences in SCLC and NSCLC in the discussion section (Lines: 598-600).
• Data from pulmonary function tests were included in accordance with Editor's first instructions, this special issue Cells concerns patients with sarcoidosis, it was suggested to us that the study group of patients with SA should be described in more detail. We agree that it would be particularly interesting to analyse different sarcoidosis phenotypes and will take this into account in future studies as we plan to expand the SA group in a new ongoing grant.

The linguistic expression has been thoroughly revised to make the sentences clearer and easier to read. In addition, we read the manuscript carefully and changed minor grammatical and stylistic errors.

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for constructive criticisms and valuable feedback which helps us to revise our manuscript.

We have carefully taken into consideration all remarks and comments. Any revisions to the manuscript were marked up using the “Track Changes” function MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the Reviewer.