Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01412-x (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Analysis of β-catenin Association with Obesity in African Americans with Premalignant
and Malignant Colorectal Lesions
Version: 0Date: 04 Jun 2020
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I think you performed a very interesting study. However, the manuscript contains a lot of spelling
and grammatical mistakes. I had to read many sections twice in order to understand what you weretrying to say. I would kindly advise that the whole manuscript is proofread and corrected onlanguage use before publication anywhere. I have some questions about your study, and somesuggestions that I hope may help you in making the paper more accessible.
Introduction and methods:
Why did you use relatively old specimens (2010-2012)? Is it possible that the beta-catenindegraded in certain specimen over time, leading to misinterpretation of your outcome?
Is there any data available on beta-catenine expression in Caucasians? And is this (expected to be)
different from African Americans?
Results:
Your sample size, especially from the control group, seems relatively small to look at arelationship with BMI. If you compare BMI between people with and without neoplasia, you want
to make sure that the samples are representative of the total group of people with or without
neoplasia for BMI. Did you check if your normal group/control group is really representative ofthe whole 'normal' target population? In other words, is the BMI in your normal group comparableto the average BMI of African American persons in this age group in your country? And if youwere not able to check this, how would you motivate this assumption?
Results section, sentence 17-19: "perhaps due to the late stage of cancer and weight loss in the
interim." This belongs in the discussion.
Figure 3 was made to depict that there is no relation between obesity and CTNNB1 expression.
This is not clear to me in the figure. Could you please adjust the figure to make this clear forviewers? I Also think it would be great for readers if you could add more details about the pathwayin this visualization. You go in great detail in the text, but a visual aid may be helpful inunderstanding the pathways.
Discussion:
Sentence 43 - 48: "In addition to the above findings, we also found that overweight and obesepatients (BMI>25) did not show a significant (p=0.3) expression of nuclear CTNNB1 (17%
positive in normal weight vs. 27% positive in overweight/obese." I think you mean 'a significantly
increased expression', but this is an example of a sentence that is hard to follow at first read.
Sentence 48 - 56: "Similarly, other studies such as Morikawa et al. found that in obese patients
nuclear CTNNB1 positivity was associated with significantly better cancer-specific survivalsuggesting that WNT signaling acts as a switch and when it is on, adipogenesis is repressed [14,32, 33]."I am not sure if I understand what you mean. Could you please explain this in the text? And couldit also be the other way around: in the normal situation it is on, but in case of a mutation it is off,
and then adipogenesis is stimulated as well as carcinogenesis?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively editedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests.Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)