Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0561-x (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Clinical significance of UGT1A1 polymorphism and expression of ERCC1, BRCA1, 
TYMS, RRM1, TUBB3, STMN1 and TO P2A in gastric cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 23 May 2016  
 
Reviewer: Supriya Shrivastava  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors Cao et al have presented an interesting study, but there are few reservations, before 
the study can be accepted:  
 
Major  
1. What was the criteria of selecting the 7 genes for this study? Did the authors randomly chose 
these f rom the literature or they had evidence that these genes were involved in gastric 
cancer pathogenesis or prognostication.  
2. Are the genes selected for this study share a common function?  
3. The genes selected for this study have been studied previously in  gastric cancer albeit in 
isolation or small groups .Identification of Genes with Differential Expression in Acquired 
Drug -Resistant Gastric Cancer Cells Using High -Density Oligonucleotide Microarrays. Clin 
Cancer Res January 1, 2004 10; 272.  Therefore it  would be precocious of the authors to 
write that " No study has been conducted to simultaneously detect their expressions in 
gastric cancer" (introduction lines 47 -49) 
4. Did the authors include control samples as in normal stomach or adjacent normal for  the 
study? This is vital as to know the difference of expression of m RNA between normal and 
cancer.  
5. Polymorphic Expression of the UDP -GlucuronosyltransferaseUGT1A Gene Locus in 
Human Gastric Epithelium. Molecular Pharmacology October 1, 1998 vol. 54 n o. 4 647 -
654. UGT1A1 polymorphism is known in gastric tissues previously, therefore the authors 
should remove the line that it has not been performed previously (discussion, lines 45 -47).  
6. Did the authors perform immunohistochemistry for TYMS, TUBB3 and  STMN1? It would 
be good to corroborate the results by IHC to see the tissue expression of these biomarkers.  
7. What about the cost effectiveness? Are the patients willing to pay for this sophisticated 
technique? The authors should discuss about this in c onclusion.  
8. Discussion is not sufficient. There are few literatures which can be referenced in the 
discussion for making a point by the authors  
9. Major revision required for English writing in view of scientific data presented especially 
the result and discussion part of the manuscript.  
 
Minor:  
Material and Methods:  
1. Lines 42 -44 …or were prepared after radical surgery". Are the authors referring to fresh 
frozen samples here?  
 
Results:  
1. How many were intestinal or diffuse type of gastric adenocarcinoma?  Was there any 
difference in expression level between the two?  
2. Degree of differentiation is reported as well, moderate, poor differentiated and 
undifferentiated. The authors have given it as high, moderate and low?  
3. In table 1, there are 3 subheadings  as metastasis, lymph node and distant metastasis, where 
metastasis comprises of both lymph node and distant metastasis. Metastasis as such can be 
removed from the table, when the authors are examining the LN and distant metastasis  
4. Are there any figures to support the data/results?  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of w ritten 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, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, 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 receiv ed 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 i n 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'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
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 websi te along with the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my name d 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