Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0478-4 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Prognostic Significance of Expression of Cysteine -Rich 61 and Cyclooxygenase -2 in 
Gastric Cancer  
 
Version:  0 Date : 03 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Snigdha  Banerjee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
In this manuscript, entitled, "Prognostic significance of co -expression of Cysteine -Rich 61 and 
Cycloxygenase -2 in gastric cancer", the authors mentioned that Cyr61 and COX -2 can se rve as a 
prognostic indicator, both together has a more important prognostic value than single expression. 
There are several weaknesses as follows:  
1. The manuscript is not well organized and poorly written. There are some spelling mistakes 
and numbers of patient's samples are incorrect. References are incorrect.  
 
2. The idea is not novel. Lin et al has already been shown that Cyr61 induces gastric cancer 
cell motility/invasion via activation of cox -2 pathway in 2005 (in the journal, Human 
Cancer Biology).  
 
3. Figures are not well explained in the result section. In the introduction part, there is no 
information about gastric cancer. Besides lung, breast and glioma, there are several other 
cancers where Cyr61 overexpresses and plays vital roles in regulatio n of cancer growth and 
progression. The authors should refer those references.  
 
4. The conclusions are based only on one technique, immunohistochemistry.  
 
5. What is TNM stage? Please explain in the manuscript. What is S -P immunohistochemical 
staining?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Needs some language corrections before being published  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation th at may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, ei ther now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
No 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be include d 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open A ccess Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal