Epithelial Membrane Protein-3 and Chitinase-3-like Protein-1 as New Prognostic Predictors of Glioma, a Two-Gene Study
, Jiandong Zhu †, Shijie Zhou, Xin Jin, Weiwei Zhai, Liang Sun, Jiang Wu * and Zhengquan Yu *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research article that provided focuses on the prognostic implications of the EMP3 and CHI3L1 genes in glioma as well as their levels of expression. You may take into account the following experimental recommendations to improve the quality of the article and provide more thorough insights:
1- Do the studies to confirm the functional functions of EMP3 and CHI3L1 in glioma. Using methods like gene knockdown (siRNA) or overexpression (plasmid transfection), their expression levels may need to be changed, and the effects on glioma cell growth, migration, invasion, and death may then be examined. Animal models might also be used to investigate the effects of modifying EMP3 and CHI3L1 expression on tumor development and metastasis.
2-Explore the fundamental molecular processes through which EMP3 and CHI3L1 contribute to the development of gliomas. This can include studying at how they interact with other genes, proteins, or signaling pathways that are known to have a role in the development of gliomas.
3-EMP3 and CHI3L1 are two possible glioma biomarkers; assess their diagnostic and prognostic value. To evaluate their applicability in non-invasive diagnostics and disease progression monitoring, analyze the levels of these genes' expression in patient serum or cerebrospinal fluid samples and correlate with clinical parameters.
4-Analyze a larger, independent cohort of glioma patients to confirm the predictive relevance of EMP3 and CHI3L1 expression. This might include obtaining recent patient samples and examining the levels of protein expression in tumor tissues using methods like immunohistochemistry. To further prove the predictive significance of these expression levels, correlate them with patient survival outcomes.
No comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Shen et al investigated the potential prognostic value of EMP3 and CHI3L1 expression in glioma. Their findings suggested that low levels of EMP3 and CHI3L1 in low-grade glioma, but not in glioblastoma, is associated with a better outcome. The manuscript may benefit from the comments below:
1) Overall, the manuscript must undergo proofreading, as the selection of words and the construction of sentences need improvement. Even the very first sentence in the Abstract is not a complete sentence. Other examples include:
a. Lines 35-36: “... the effect is not good” is vague.
b. Lines 53-54: “focused on its role of EMP3” does not make sense.
c. Line 57: what does “physiological expression” mean?
d. Lines 62-63: “EMP3 expression is shallow”, meaning “low”?
e. Line 81: “patients overexpressing CHI3L1”. Patients do not overexpress, it’s the tumour cells.
There are many other areas where significant improvement is needed in English grammar and composition.
2) Lines 88-89: How do EMP3 and CHI3L1 expression levels play a role in guiding in glioma treatment?
3) Figure 1 findings contradicts with Figure 9c findings: Glioblastoma tissue has higher EMP3 and CHI3L1 levels in Figure 1, and vice versa in Figure 9c.
4) In Table 2, what is “non-gbm” tissue?
5) Lines 199-203: There are two redundant sentences. “In conclusion…” and “Thus it can be used...” are virtually the same sentences.
6) What are the cut-off expression levels in Figure 2 to categorise samples in “high” vs “low”?
7) Line 208: “We selected 404 primary glioma patients and 253 with recurrent glioma patients from the CGGA”. How did the authors “select” samples? Were there an inclusion/exclusion criteria?
8) Lines 217-218: “The prognosis of EMP3 and CHI3L1…”. Genes do not have a prognosis. Please re-write this sentence.
9) In Figure 3, did the authors analyse their data by separating glioblastoma from LGG?
10) Lines 242-244: The sentence is long and not clear. Needs to be rewritten.
11) In Figure 6a, authors show deletion mutations of EMP3 while amplification mutations for CHI3L. Does that mean that these two genes have opposite roles in tumour progression>
12) Line 263: What does “regular patients” mean?
13) What is the take-home message in Figure 8 and its relevance to the overall study?
14) What is the sample size in Figure 9?
Recommendations can be found in the comments provided.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In addition to the RNA-seq analysis, the expression of CHI3L1 and EMP3 should be confirmed in the tissue samples with IHC to enhance the study's outcomes.
NO
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
All of my comments were satisfactorily addressed by the authors.
No any
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of our manuscript and your constructive comments. We are very glad that our modifications are satisfactory to you and wish you a perfect day.
