| ²é¿´: 1095 | »Ø¸´: 3 | |||
| ¡¾½±Àø¡¿ ±¾Ìû±»ÆÀ¼Û2´Î£¬×÷Õßandyfu125Ôö¼Ó½ð±Ò 1.5 ¸ö | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | |||
[×ÊÔ´]
һƪSCI paperµÄ·ÖÃäÈ«¼Í¼ ¾Ñé̸֮ ¡¾×ªÌù¡¿
|
|||
|
½üÀ´Å¼È»¿´µ½Ò»ÆªÎÄÕ£º BMC Cancer. 2006 Jul 19;6:191. Links Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase gene expressions are significantly correlated in human colorectal cancer. Linsalata M, Giannini R, Notarnicola M, Cavallini A. ÎÄÕ±¾ÉíûÓÐÌØ±ðµÄµØ·½£¬ÔÓÖ¾IFÒ²Ö»ÊÇÔÚ2-3Ö®¼ä¡£ÒýÈË×¢ÒâµÄÊÇ£¬ÔÚÎÄÕÂĩβÔÓÖ¾ÌṩÁËPre-publication history£¨http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/6/191/prepub£©¡£ÓÉÓÚÎÄÕ´ó¶¼ÀϰåÇ××Ô²Ùµ¶£¬ÎÒºÜÄÑÌåÍêÈ«ÑéһƪÎÄÕ´ÓͶµ½·¢µÄÈ«¹ý³Ì¡£È˼ÒÔÓÖ¾ÉçÄ¿µÄ¿ÉÄÜÔÚÓÚÇ¿µ÷fairplay£¬µ«ÏñÎÒÕâÑùµÄ²ËÄñÈ´¿ÉÒÔѧµ½Ò»Ð©¶«Î÷¡£ÏÖ½«ÕâЩ×ÊÁÏÕûÀíÈçÏ£¬Óë¸ÐÐËȤµÄÕ½ÓÑÃÇÒ»Æðѧϰѧϰ¡£ ![]() ![]() ![]() ÕâÊǸÃÎÄÕµĴóÖÂÄÚÈÝ£º ODC£¨ÄñÜÕËáÍÑôÈø£©ºÍSSAT£¨¾«°·/ÑǾ«°·N1-ÒÒõ£ÒÆÃ¸£©ÔÚpolyamine£¨¶à°·£©´úл¹ý³ÌÖз¢»ÓÖØÒªµ÷½Ú×÷Óã»×ªÂ¼Òò×ÓPPAR¦Ã²ÎÓëµ÷½ÚÖ¬·¾Ï¸°û·Ö»¯ºÍÆÏÌÑÌÇ´úл¡£×÷ÕßÔÚ40¸ö½á³¦°©²¡ÀýÖз¢ÏÖÈýÖÖ»ùÒòе÷±í´ï£¬²¢Ìá³öÕâ¿ÉÄܺÍÖ×Áö·¢ÉúÏà¹Ø¡£ÁíÍ⣬ÓÉÓÚk-rasÍ»±äÔڽ᳦°©·¢Éú¹ý³ÌÖÐÓëϸ°ûÔöÖ³ºÍ·Ö»¯Ïà¹Ø£¬×÷Õß»¹ÏàÓ¦¼ì²âÁËÕâЩ»ùÒòÔÚk-rasÍ»±äÖеıí´ï¡£ ÎÄÕ´ÓһͶµ½publishedÒ»¹²ÀúʱÁ½¸ö°ëÔ£º Version1 £¨Original manuscript£©Date: 4 May 2006 Version2 Date: 26 June 2006 Version3 Date: 5 July 2006 Published Date:19 July 2006 ÒÔÏÂÊÇһͶºó£¨Version1£©ÈýλreviewerµÄÒâ¼û£º Reviewer 1£¨Debora L Kramer£¬²»¿É˼Ò飬ÔÎļþÖоÓÈ»»¹¸½ÉÏreviewerµÄÐÕÃû£¡£¡£¡£©£º Ò»£¬ÆÀ¼Û General£¨ÕûÌåÆÀ¼Û£© The authors present a reasonable interpretation of the data without overstating their findings. However, the differences between K-ras positive and negative data was marginal and thus, added little to the story. Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) ÎÞ Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) ÎÞ ¶þ£¬½¨Òé What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being published£¨Ô¸åÊÇÒâ´óÀûÈËдµÄ£© Statistical review: No Declaration of competing interests: No. ÕûÌåÀ´ËµÕâλViewer»¹ÊǺÜÈÏÕæµÄ£¬¿´Ãû×ÖºÃÏñÊÇÈÕ¶ûÂüÈË£¿£¡ ¸½¸ÃreviewerÔÚÏà¹ØÁìÓò´ú±íÐÔÎÄÕ£º Cancer Res. 2005 Jun 15;65(12):5390-8. Tucker JM, Murphy JT, Kisiel N, Diegelman P, Barbour KW, Davis C, Medda M, Alhonen L, Janne J, Kramer DL£¡£¡£¡, Porter CW, Berger FG. Potent modulation of intestinal tumorigenesis in Apcmin/+ mice by the polyamine catabolic enzyme spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase. Reviewer 2£¨Natalia A Ignatenko£©£º Ò»£¬ ÆÀ¼Û£º General£¨ÕûÌåÆÀ¼Û£© ÎÞ Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) ÎÞ Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) The main significance of this paper is the analysis of the correlation between PPAR gamma mRNA levels and the presence of K-ras mutations in tumor samples. The polyamine metabolism in human colon adenocarcinomas has been extensively studied before.£¨Õâ¶ÎÆÀÂÛËÆºõÓ¦¸Ã³öÏÖÔÚGeneral²¿·Ö£© I would suggest the authors to discuss their results in greater details. Authors also should explain why did they focus on the evaluation of the mutational status of codon 12 and did not analyse codon 13 or 61 mutations. ¶þ£¬½¨Òé What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions Level of interest: An article of importance in its field Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being published Statistical review: No ¶íÂÞ˹ÈËÓеã¶ùÂþ²»¾ÐÄ¡£ ¸½¸ÃreviewerÔÚÏà¹ØÁìÓò´ú±íÐÔÎÄÕ£º Mol Carcinog 2004, 39:91-102. Ignatenko NA£¡£¡£¡, Babbar N, Mehta D, Casero RA, Gerner EW: Suppression of polyamine catabolism by activated Ki-ras in human colon cancer cells. Reviewer 3£¨Francis RAUL£¬ºÇºÇ£¬ÀͶû£¡£¡£¡£©£º Ò»£¬ ÆÀ¼Û£º General£¨ÕûÌåÆÀ¼Û£© This original study is well conducted and methods are clearly described. The data are concisely reported but the following aspects need clarification. Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) ÎÞ Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 1. Background, two last lines of page 4: There is an apparent contradiction between the sentence: ¡±Induction of SSAT¡± typically gives rise to ¡°growth inhibition¡±, and the following sentence ¡°Moreover , increased SSAT activity has been observed in breast cancer¡±. This assumption has to be better explained or rephrased since it does not confirm that activation of SSAT is associated with an anti-proliferative effect. ¸½¼ÓËùÌá¼°µÄÔÎÄ ¡°Moreover, increased SSAT activity has been observed in breast cancer in comparison to normal tissue [10] and it has been suggested that high levels of the SSAT expression can exert tumour-suppressive effects [11-12].¡± 2. In the text of Results, Discussion and in Table 3: The terms mutated K-ras or K-ras negative; K-ras wild-type or K ras positive are used alternatively and renders the text confusing. The same term should be used throughout the manuscript to distinguish mutated from non-mutated K-ras. How are you excluding that tumor samples may present a mutated K-ras at another location than codon 12? 3. Discussion, end of page 10: Do the authors mean that an increase of SSAT without a concomitant downregulation of the polyamine biosynthetic pathway (ODC inhibition) is unsufficient for counteracting tumor development? This point which is also evoked in the conclusions should be discussed by the authors (with some references). ¿¼Âǵ½ÕâÆªÎÄÕÂÖ»×öÁ˱í´ï¼ì²â£¬Ã»ÓÐ×öµ÷½Ú£¬×÷ÕßµÄÕâ¸öÂÛµãȷʵÓÐЩÐþ£¬ÕâλRaul¹»¶¾¡£ ¸½¼ÓÔÎÄ£º ¡°Therefore, we can suppose that the increase in polyamine catabolic activity, as a result of PPAR¦Ã induction, could be not sufficient to counterbalance the abnormal increase in polyamine biosynthetic activity observed in tumour tissue.¡± 4. Table 3: In order to standardize presentation with Tables 2, values for PPAR mRNA should be presented at the bottom of Table 3.±í¸ñ¾Í²»´«ÁË£¬×ÜÖ®Õâ¸öС½¨Òé×÷ÕߺóÀ´²ÉÄÉÁË¡£ ¶þ£¬½¨Òé What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Quality of written English: Acceptable Statistical review: No Declaration of competing interests: I declare that I have no competing interests below. ËäÈ»½ÓÊÜÁË£¬µ«Î÷°àÑÀÈ˲»Ê§Ï¬Àû¡£ ¸½¸ÃreviewerÔÚÏà¹ØÁìÓò´ú±íÐÔÎÄÕ£º Int J Oncol. 2006 Aug;29(2):423-8.Links Potentiation of apple procyanidin-triggered apoptosis by the polyamine oxidase inactivator MDL 72527 in human colon cancer-derived metastatic cells.Goss¨¦ F, Roussi S, Guyot S, Schoenfelder A, Mann A, Bergerat JP, Seiler N, Raul F£¡£¡£¡. ÒÔÏÂÊÇ×÷Õß¶ÔÉÏÊöÆÀÉóÒâ¼ûµÄ·´Ó¦£º Author's response to reviews£¨Õë¶ÔVersion1µÄ£© Ê×ÏÈ£¬×÷ÕßÏò±à¼±íʾÎÄÕ¸ñʽÒѾ°´ÒªÇó×÷³öÏàÓ¦¸Ä¶¯£¬²¢Ç¿µ÷ÔÚһλa native English speaking colleagueµÄ°ïÖúÏ¡°English has been improved¡±¡£½ÓÏÂÀ´ÊÇ×÷Õß¶Ô¼¸Î»reviewerµÄ»Ø¸´£º Reviewer 1 (Debora L. Kramer) ¡°We agree with comment of the reviewer.¡±Õâ¸öûʲô˵µÄ£¬»ù±¾ÉϾÍÊÇ˳·ç»°¡£ Reviewer 2 (Natalia A. Ignatenko) Comment - Authors should explain why did they focus on the evaluation of the mutational status of codon 12 and did not analyse codon 13 or 61 mutations ? Answer - We have focused our attention on the evaluation of the mutated codon 12 of the K-ras since this mutation is mostly frequent (27% - 30%) in colorectal tissue as compared to mutated codon 13 (5% - 6%). Moreover, the mutated codon 61 occurs more frequently in other cancer tissues (1-3). Therefore, the percentages of mutated codon 13 and 61 would be very low in the 40 patients considered in our study. Õâλreviewer¸ÕºÃÊÇ×ök-ras mutantµÄ£¬×÷Õß¿ÉÊÇײµ½Ç¹¿ÚÉÏÁË£¡£¡£¡²»¹ý»Ø´ðÒ²ËãÓÐÀíÓоݡ£ Reviewer 3 (Francis Raul) 1. Comment - Background, two last lines of page 4: there is an apparent contradiction between the sentence: "Induction of SSAT .... typically gives rise to growth inibition......" and the following sentence "Moreover, increase SSAT activity has been observed in breast cancer......" . Answer - We have rephrased and better explained these sentences (Background section, pag. 4, three last lines) ¸½¼Ó¸Ä¶¯ºóÔÎÄ£º ¡°Induction of SSAT plays an important role in lowering the polyamine pool and typically gives rise to growth inhibition as well as exerting tumour-suppressive effects [10-11]. Particularly, Wallace et al. have hypothesized that the increase in SSAT activity may be an attempt to reduce the polyamine pool in tumour cells. [12]¡± ±Ü¿ªÁËÔÀ´µÄì¶ÜÖ®´¦¡£ 2. Question- In the text of results, discussion and in table 3. The terms mutated K-ras or K-ras negative; K-ras wild-type or K-ras positive are used alternatively and renders the text confusing. Answer - Through out the manuscript we have used the terms mutated and non mutated K-ras to indicate the colorectal tissues with and without K-ras mutation, respectively. Question- How are you excluding that tumor samples may present a mutated K-ras at another location than codon 12? Answer - Regarding the presence of a mutated K-ras at another location than codon 12, please see answer to reviewer 2. Õâ¸ö»Ø´ðÌ«COOLÁË£¡£¡£¡ 3. Question- Discussion of pag 10: do the authors mean that an increase of SSAT without a concomitant downregulation of the polyamine biosynthetic pathway (ODC inhibition) is unsufficient for counteracting tumor development?. Answer - This issue has been discussed in greater details and supported by some references in the text (Discussion section, pag. 10, lines 19-23, and pag. 11, lines 1-15). ÓÉÓÚʵÑé½á¹ûÓÐÏÞ£¬´Ë·¬´óÐÞ×÷ÕßÒ²ÊÇÉ··Ñ¿àÐÄ£¬µ«ºÃÔÚÄÜ×ÔÔ²Æä˵¡£ÓÉÓÚ±³¾°ÖªÊ¶ËùÏÞ¼ÓÉÏÄÚÈݹýÈߣ¬ÕâÀï¾Í²»½«ÔÎÄÁгöÁË¡£ 4. Question- In order to standardize presentation with table 2, values for PPAR mRNA should be presented at the bottom of table 3. Answer - Values for PPARg mRNA have been presented at the bottom of Table 3. ×îºó£¬×÷Õ߸ù¾ÝÕâЩ¸Ä¶¯¸ø³öÁËVersion 2 manuscript¡£ ÔÚVersion 2 manuscriptͶ³öºó£¬±à¼¾Í¸ñʽ·½Ãæ¸ø³öÁËÒ»µã½¨Ò飬ÒÔÏÂÊÇ×÷Õ߶Եķ´À¡£º Author's response to reviews£¨Õë¶ÔVersion2µÄ£© ¡°To BioMed Central Editorial Production Team. We send to you the revised manuscript with the following changes in the format: 1. the titles from the list of the authors have been removed; 2. the figure (Figure 1) and the tables (Tables 1 and 2) have been referred to in the text.¡° Yours sincerely Michele Linsalata, B.D.£¨ÕâÖ»ÊÇ˶ʿÂÛÎÄŶ£© ´ó¹¦ÖÕÓÚ¸æ³É£¡£¡£¡ ÎÒ¸öÈ˵ÄÒ»µã¿´·¨£º ËÑÁËһϼ¸Î»reviewerµÄÎÄÕ£¬·½Ïò¶¼ºÍ±¾ÎÄÊ®·ÖÌù½ü£¬¶øÇÒ¼¶±ðÒª¸ßһЩ¡£¿´À´ÒªÏë·¢ÎÄÕÂÖ»ÄܽÓÊÜÀ´×ÔÓÚ¹úÍâͬÐÐÃǵġ°ÉóÅС°¡£ÖµµÃ×¢ÒâµÄÊÇ£¬ÕâЩ×ÊÁÏÖÐÌṩÁËreviewerµÄÐÕÃû£¬È´ÊÇßÍß͹ÖÊ¡£µ±È»Ò²¿ÉÄÜÊÇÎÒ¿´µÄÎÄÕÂÓÐÏÞ£¬ÉÙ¼û¶à¹Ö¡£ ËäÈ»±¾ÎÄÖ»¾ÖÏÞÓÚ±í´ï£¬µ«ÔÚÐ޸Ĺý³ÌÖÐ×÷ÕßÌáµ½»¹×¼±¸ÉîÈë½øÐе÷½Ú·½ÃæµÄ¹¤×÷£¬¹À¼ÆËûÃÇÏÂһƪÎÄÕÂÄܺÃÐí¶à°É¡£µ«Ò²ÓÐÈ˸üÔ¸ÒâÒ»¿ÚÆø°Ñ±í´ï¡¢µ÷½ÚÉõÖÁ¹¦Äܶ¼×öÁË£¬±ï¸ö´ópaper¡£ºÎÈ¥ºÎ´Ó£¬ÈÊÕß¼ûÈÊÖÇÕß¼ûÖǰɡ£ ÁíÍ⣬Version1 manuscriptÎÒ´óÖ¿´¹ý£¬¸Ð¾õÒâ´óÀûÈ˵ÄÓ¢ÓïÒѾ²»´íÁË£¬¿ÉÈ˼һ¹ÊÇÈÏÕæµØÕÒÁËnative speaker°ïÖúÐ޸ġ£Ò»·½ÃæËµÃ÷̬¶ÈÎÊÌ⣬ͬʱ¸ü±íÃ÷Ó¢ÎÄÔÚÎÄÕ·¢±í¹ý³ÌÖÐÕæµÄºÜÖØÒª¡£ ¿´ÍêµÄͬʱ£¬¸øÐֵܰ³ÆÀ¼Ûһϰɣ¡£¡ ÄãÃǵĻظ´ÊÇÎÒ·¢ÌûµÄ¶¯Á¦ ![]() ![]() [ Last edited by andyfu125 on 2007-9-22 at 16:56 ] |
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
SCIд×÷¡¢Í¶¸å¡¢¾Ñé |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
366Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì085601£¬270Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ37È˻ظ´
279ѧ˶ʳƷרҵÇóµ÷¼ÁԺУ
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
290µ÷¼ÁÉúÎï0860
ÒѾÓÐ31È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸085802 323·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
277Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
322Çóµ÷¼Á£¬08¹¤¿Æ
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì281»¹Óе÷¼Á»ú»áÂð
ÒѾÓÐ30È˻ظ´
»¯Ñ§070300 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶294·Ö£¬Çóµ¼Ê¦ÊÕÁô
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
2Â¥2007-09-22 14:18:20
3Â¥2007-10-12 17:45:05
4Â¥2007-10-12 19:53:11















»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥