-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This paper summarize the discovery of 7B2 from Porcine to its human orthologs popularly known as - SGNE1. This review paper is outstanding based on originality and discussion based on previous literature. They discuss following points in this review paper
a) The discovery of this unique protein based on N terminal sequencing of protein to complete open reading frames of the genes and organizations of different exons.
b) The biological association of 7B2 and PC2(Precursor Convertases)and its implication in essential physiological and metabolic process.
c) The role of 7B2 in both in vitro and in vivo model. They also linked this protein in different organs and its associaton with different diseases
The knockout model of 7B2 is lethal at a young age suggesting its essential role in growth and development.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The claims and discussion on different subjects related to the 7B2 protein in this paper is novel.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
The claim and conclusions are adequately supported by several previously published publications.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
NA
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
N/A
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
The author has described the novel partnership of 7B2 and PC2((Precursor Convertases), It would have been more easy for readers to follow if they can incorporate a schematic diagram of the protein protein interation(7B2 and PC2)and it role in different physiological process. Also a table describing the association of this novel protein with different diseases in different hosts can further add to the intellectual merit.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
This paper is outstanding.
-
Other Comments:
NA
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
J Bacteriol. 2011 August; 193(15): 3794–3803.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Mishra P K.Exploration of a Novel Neuroendocrine Protein 7B2[Review of the article '7B2, A Neuroendocrine Protein, Still Under Investigation for its Hormonal Role(s) ' by Bloom S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002411
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
It is a nicely written review on a pituitaty protein, 7B2, describing its tissue distribution, in vivoand in vitro studies, including molecular biological aspects and its role as a novel neuroendocrine biomarker.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Claims are novel in the literature.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
The observations, results and overall review of the related literature support the claims.
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Borad spectrum of global future research is needed to exlpore further the area by the scientists.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
Outstanding review.
-
Other Comments:
NA
-
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:
Neuroendocrinology
- How to cite: Sarkar P K.Exploring the Role of 7B2 as a Novel Neuroendocrine Biomarker. [Review of the article '7B2, A Neuroendocrine Protein, Still Under Investigation for its Hormonal Role(s) ' by Bloom S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002358
The paper discuss isolation, characterization and possible hormonal role(s) of 7B2
The discussion of various aspects of 7B2 is novel
Claim and conclusions are well supported by relevant literature
NA
NA
NA
I would have seen diagrams and pictures to clarify the key point, the interaction between 7B2 and PC2 precursor converatase.
I would like authors amend an apparent contradiction. They wrote at the end of page 5 "...Likewise, patients with medullary carcinoma of the thyroid or pheochromocytoma showed elevated plasma 7B2" and immediately after "In contrast, these levels were within the normal range in patients affected by Cushing's disease, prolactinoma or medullary carcinoma of the thyroid..."
The paper is already outstanding
Amend the already mentioned contradiction
No
No
No
None
None