Epigenetic Modifications in Lymphoma and Their Role in the Classification of Lymphomas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article titled “ Epigenetic modifications in lymphoma and their role in the

classification of lymphomas” is well written, clear, complete and consequential. The work’s easily reads and it is sufficiently documented. Data presentation and discussion are illustrated by appropriate tables. The references are recent and solid. The terminology used is consistent with that of the current WHO classification.The conclusions are clear and consistent with the premises and the discussion.

The work summarizes the literature on epigenetic dysregulation in lymphoma and how it has been utilised in diagnosis and classification.
It also highlights the possibilities of designing prognostic scores (i.e. M7-FLIPI in follicular lymphomas in patient treated with chemotherapy-based regimens) and the role of targeted therapy in some of these subtypes of lymphoma.
The conclusions underline the role of epigenetic dysregulation in lymphomas, on their development and behavior. In some lymphomas subtypes there is no doubt that the detection of epigenetic alterations alters outcome. At this stage it is probably too early to use epigenetic changes to re-define B cell lymphomas.
Nonetheless the recognition of epigenetic changes will acquire greater relevance to develop more complex prognostic tool. 
 
 
Perhaps , I suggest a further summary table of those lymphomas analyzed in this study, would be useful.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and thorough review the of the manuscript. The feedback is much appreciated. We have added a second table as suggested covering all lymphoma subtype discussed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Harrop and Colleagues in their review entitle “Epigenetic modifications in lymphoma and their role in the 1 classification of lymphomas” describes recurrent mutations in key epigenetic regulators that have been utilised to define clinicogenetic groups that can predict clinical behaviour in lymphomas.

The review is well written and exhaustive

The table is informative, references are appropriately selected and updated. The conclusions correspond to the data discussed.

A typo on lines 189 and 191: Han's algorithm should be Hans algorithm

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and evaluation of the manuscript. We have amended the typos as suggested.