Next Article in Journal
Generation and Evaluation of Synthetic Computed Tomography (CT) from Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) by Incorporating Feature-Driven Loss into Intensity-Based Loss Functions in Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Previous Article in Journal
Systematic Analysis of Genetic and Pathway Determinants of Eribulin Sensitivity across 100 Human Cancer Cell Lines from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of Selected Non-Coding RNAs and Gene Expression Profiles between Common Osteosarcoma Cell Lines

Cancers 2022, 14(18), 4533; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184533
by Mateusz Sikora 1, Katarzyna Krajewska 1, Klaudia Marcinkowska 1, Anna Raciborska 2, Rafał Jakub Wiglusz 3,4,5 and Agnieszka Śmieszek 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Cancers 2022, 14(18), 4533; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184533
Submission received: 18 August 2022 / Revised: 14 September 2022 / Accepted: 15 September 2022 / Published: 19 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

More detailed information on long non-coding RNA MEG3 may be added in the Introduction. Figure 1 legend may be revised to indicate that MEG3 is long non-coding RNA (lncRNA).

Materials and Methods would be revised to add information on cell lines and statistics in sub-sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, the study well designed and the paper well written.

The Authors evaluated levels of several onco-miRs  and long non-coding 23 RNA MEG3 in different osteosarcoma cell lines. 

Aim of the study must be detailed further.

I would describe more in details overall differences between evaluated cell lines. Which are the known differences between them?

Discussion: please provide more details regarding what are the potential translations in the clinical practice. I would add a paragraph on therapies potential acting on these targets.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop