Submited on: 12 Nov 2011 06:16:57 AM GMT
Published on: 12 Nov 2011 06:29:06 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is a concise paper with interesting preliminary data. Although complete in itself search for factors preventing any damage to the  tumor would be more informative.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    30 ears as a research and diagnostic Pathologist.

  • How to cite:  Iyengar B P.Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth o..[Review of the article 'Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice ' by Characiejus D].WebmedCentral 2011;3(1):WMCRW001352
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    In my opinion this is a very interesting paper and a very relevant. Just some comments: one is about the Statistical analysis. The paragraph is not finished.

    The second one is about the Introduction section in which authors explained that several reports suggest that expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes and their accumulation within the tumour is associated with longer survival. Then they just included one reference. I would suggest to include several.

    I wonder about the influence of tumoral burden in the results you have achieved and what would have happened if these mice had received an anticancer treatment. As authors said very well, we will need further studies to answer these and more questions.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Medical Oncologist and researcher mainly in digestive tumours

  • How to cite:  Una Cidon E .Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice[Review of the article 'Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice ' by Characiejus D].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001302
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The authors present here an important set of observations. The observation of peripheral blood CD44(hi)CD8+ T cells being negative prognostic marker for tumours while previous data suggests their lung/spleen localization to be positive prognostic marker is an interesting new update. However, I have certain major and minor comments that could help the authors to increase the quality and impact of their study.

    Major Comments:

    1. Peripheral blood CD44(hi)CD8+ T cells cannot be considered to be markers of anti-tumour immunity. This is simply an observation that implies activation of immune system similar to tumour-associated spleenomegaly. CD8+ T cell infiltration in tumour stroma is a better marker of this. The manuscript needs to be adapted on these lines.

    2. The authors should score the presence of CD44(hi)CD8+ T cells in tumour stroma, spleen and lungs. This will be a good addition as this will not only put the current study in prespective with the previous one but will also give more insights into whether this T cell population can be considered as any kind of prognostic marker.

    3. The levels of CD44(hi)CD8+ T cells should be correlated with tumour volume for each mice. This would give a better idea of how these cell's presence correlates in terms of anti-tumour immunity. High abundance of these cells correlating with higher tumour volumes could establish peripheral blood presence of these cells as negative prognostic marker.

    3. CD57 expression's acquisition is mentioned to be a marker of T cell expansion. This statement is misleading. CD57 expression is more closely associated with clonal exhaustion and cellular senescence of T cells as its expression is directly porpotional to number of cell divisions but inversely propotional to telomere length. This needs clarification.

    4. The references mentioned for cytotoxic effects of CD57 expressing T cells is based on papers studying pathogens and not cancer. This needs amendments.

    5. T cell associated cytokines also need to be scored to establish exact correlation of these cells with tumour immunity. IL-2, IL-4 and IFN-gamma analysis will give a long-lasting impression of exact immunological response activated in tumour-bearing mice.

    Minor Comments:

    1. In menthods, the volumes are not mentioned properly. "?l" is not an appropriate way of marking liquid volumes.

    2. Phenotypes based on CD57, CD44 and CD28 need explicit explaination so that readers who are less aware of these cells are able to follow the paper.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    1. A novel pathway combining calreticulin exposure and ATP secretion in immunogenic cancer cell death. Garg AD, Krysko DV, Verfaillie T, Kaczmarek A, Ferreira GB, Marysael T, Rubio N, Firczuk M, Mathieu C, Roebroek AJ, Annaert W, Golab J, de Witte P, Vandenabeele P, Agostinis P. EMBO J. 2012 Jan 17. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.497. [Epub ahead of print] PMID:22252128 2. Hypericin-based photodynamic therapy induces surface exposure of damage-associated molecular patterns like HSP70 and calreticulin. Garg AD, Krysko DV, Vandenabeele P, Agostinis P. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012 Feb;61(2):215-21. Epub 2011 Dec 23. PMID: 22193987
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have been working on tumour immunology with application of anti-tumour immunity being the main focus.

  • How to cite:  Garg A .CD8+CD44(hi) T cells - Negative or Positive Prognostics Markers?[Review of the article 'Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice ' by Characiejus D].WebmedCentral 2011;3(2):WMCRW001453
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Very outstanding paper.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Ihave been publishing on skin tumors

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice[Review of the article 'Expansion of CD8+CD44h Lymphocytes During Growth of SL2 Tumors in DBA/2 Mice ' by Characiejus D].WebmedCentral 2011;2(11):WMCRW001123
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse