Submited on: 17 Feb 2013 06:54:40 PM GMT
Published on: 18 Feb 2013 07:44:28 AM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The main claims of the paper are thatthe most evidenced risk factor is retroviral infections, a part of their genome is incorporated as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)  being essential  for transient immune suppression and tolerance of “foreign” embryo at the stage of trophoblast implantation.  In aging mammals, the ERVs genome is reactivated  to  the potential development of neoplasia. These claims are original and and give a new insight into the process of oncogenesis.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes the claims are novel and original.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes the claims are well placed and discussed in a proper perspective with regard to existing literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results do indicate and support the claims. More essentially, the review opens up novel areas of research in this field.


  • 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?

    No protocolis provided.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes there is enough evidence and details to support their claim.


  • 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 paper has adequate information and does not need any further inputs. However the hypothesis has to be worked out with detailed experimentation.


  • 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?

    Yes the work is indeed exciting and needs to be projected at a lecture or seminar. It is outstanding since a fundamental fact linking embryogenesis to oncogenesis has been broached.


  • Other Comments:

    Overall commendable paper which opens up new avenues of research especially symbiotic association of viruses with mammalian genome.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    "Perspectives in Tumour Biology: Tumour Differentiation and Insights Into Embryogenesis" Chapter in iConcept book on Cancer Research.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Iyengar B P.Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002623
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
On Neoplasia in Viviparous Animals
Posted by Dr. Constantino Ledesma-Montes on 18 Mar 2013 06:27:03 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    No claims. The authors made a review on the spontaneous apparition of neoplasms in viviparpus mammals and express their opinion.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No there are many articles on this matter.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    This is  a good review of the literature.


  • 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?

    No protocol is proposed. Opinions of the authors are in context propose that ERV genome in mammals is a potential risk factor for the spontaneous development of neoplasia


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes it is valid and scientific details on this matter are enough.


  • 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 paper is well writen. Ideas are clearly expressed.


  • 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?

    Yes it is an excellent review of the literature on this matter.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • 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:

    I am a teacher of Pathology in a School of Dentistry and in the Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Speciality.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .On Neoplasia in Viviparous Animals[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002622
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
This is a Repost of a Previous Submission.
Posted by Dr. Justin Fendos on 18 Mar 2013 12:20:45 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Please note this article was previously submitted and reviewed. Nothing has changed in this resubmission.

    The manuscript examines a very refreshing topic which is the viral nature of tumor genesis in viviparous mammals. The sheer breadth of information provided is excellent although I am unqualified to confirm all of its accuracy. The article could be improved by drawing more parallels to human tumor formation. The article does make some amount of effort to mention human tumors but this mention is largely done in passing and presented in the form of general background. A more structured, side-by-side comparison of mechanistic and experimental aspects would seem to be more appropriate and meaningful for a larger audience.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Since this article is a review, the claims are not novel. But a review of this depth on this subject is novel as far as I am aware. As it is a very refreshing angle on the general topic of cancer development, I think the material is very appropriate for a comprehensive review. At the same time, I think the article could be better organized and focused to present a more informative selection of data aimed at drawing mechanistic parallels to human tumor development in a simpler step-by-step fashion with the specific aim of describing how vivaparous animals may be used as a helpful model system.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    I think overall the text does an excellent job providing a large wealth of information with a significant number of references. I have not made any effort to confirm the references nor am I qualified to rate the accuracy of much of the information provided but the overall breadth is very appropriate as is the general style of writing for the most part. Most of the conclusions drawn are reasonable and the language chosen reflects this rational approach for a majority of the article. There are some moments, however, where the authors make some presumptions that bias the tone of the work. Some of the most glaring instances of this occur in the section about telomeres. The tone of the language inappropriately lends heavy weight to the implication of telomeres in tumor genesis. Having worked on telomeres myself, I must say that their implication is less than certain outside of tissue culture and yet the authors imply a mechanistic link to tumor formation in vivo without mentioning the data to the contrary.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The selection of references provided seems very appropriate although at times I wonder if the text could be organized better into smaller, more specific categories for easier reading. The sections as they are now feel large and, at times, unfocused.


  • 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?

    This is a review so no protocols are involved.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    This is a review so no protocols are involved.


  • 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?

    As mentioned above, I think the manuscript could be improved significantly by putting more effort into drawing mechanistic parallels to our understanding of human cancer development. As it is, it functions as a wealthy but somewhat limited review of only viviparous mammals with some unfortunate presumptions that bias the tone along the way.


  • 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?

    I have not seen a review on this subject before so that already makes it unique. Also given the great wealth of information it provides, I do think this review is close to being outstanding for its specific topic.


  • Other Comments:

    In addition to the presumptive nature of some parts, there are a few moments in the manuscript where the authors deviate from a more proper scientific writing style. This is particularly noticeable in the first section of the main body where the authors begin with a quote from Shakespeare. Although perhaps textually relevant, this is usually inappropriate for formal scientific literature. This is not a common problem but does happen subtly from time to time. As mentioned above, I also wonder if the organization of such a wealth of material could be done better to give smaller, more focused sections in the main body.

  • 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:

    Human cancer research.

  • How to cite:  Fendos J .This is a Repost of a Previous Submission.[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002620
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The authors postulate endogenous retroviuses as a driving force in evolution and also as a potential risk factor for neoplasias in viviparous mammals. This appears especially true for malignancies which areise in advanced age.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Some aspects are novel, but it has to be mentioned that HERVs may also be protective against some neoplasias.

    Karlic H, Eder G, Pfeilstöcker M  Human endogenous retroviruses and risk evaluation for therapeutic use of stem cells and gene therapy.

    Recent Research Developments in Cancer, 6, 57-80, 2004

    Pfeilstocker, M., Karlic, H., Fillitz M,EderG, Koskela S, Pittermann E. Expression of HERV-K, a Human Endogenous Retrovirus in Hematopoietic Cells.  Blood  Vol. 104 (No 11/Pt2), p. 116b, 2004

    Forty-sixth Annual  Meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Dec. 4-7, San Diego, CA


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The claims are quite properly placed, but should be discussed more critically.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    This is a review article, and thus, the only evidences arise from the cited literature.


  • 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?

    This is a review article, and thus, no detailed protocols are needed.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    For a review, the method is literature search and thus, the methodology is valid. Although this is a very large review, some aspects (e.g. regarding the protective role of Endogenous Retroviruses are still missing.


  • 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?

    Additional compementary experiments would improve it, but this is mainly a review


  • 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?

    Yes, I can imagine to present this work to my students for initiating a critical discussion, because this review appears too much "one-sided".


  • Other Comments:

    The hypothesis presented in this review could provide an explanation for a finding published in 1997, indicating an association of  sequence mortifs from the Human T-cell Leukemia Virus (HTLV-1) with the incidence of Myeldodysplastic syndromes in a distinct population.

    Karlic H, Möstl M, Mucke H, Pavlova B, Pfeilstöcker M, Heinz R. Association of human T-cell leukemia

    virus and myelodysplastic syndrome in a central European population. Cancer Res 57, 4718-4721, 1997

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Karlic H, Eder G, Pfeilstöcker M Human endogenous retroviruses and risk evaluation for therapeutic use of stem cells and gene therapy. Recent Research Developments in Cancer, 6, 57-80, 2004 Pfeilstocker, M., Karlic, H., Fillitz M,EderG, Koskela S, Pittermann E. Expression of HERV-K, a Human Endogenous Retrovirus in Hematopoietic Cells. Blood Vol. 104 (No 11/Pt2), p. 116b, 2004 Karlic H, Möstl M, Mucke H, Pavlova B, Pfeilstöcker M, Heinz R. Association of human T-cell leukemia virus and myelodysplastic syndrome in a central European population. Cancer Res 57, 4718-4721, 1997 Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Dec. 4-7, San Diego, CA

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Karlic H .Endogenous Retroviruses as Risk Factor for Cancer Risk in Mammals[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002619
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    In this paper the authors show us their point of wiew about neoplasias and how this is a challanging subject for all linked to this subject. The importance of this kind of work is to stimulate new ideas and new solutions.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes. The authors show us their point of view about a controversial subject.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. The paper is well placed in the context of tumor neoplasia.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Of course more evidence is required to prove the author`s statments, but their ideas are properly supported.


  • 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?

    The authors explained theri point of view in a clearly way. No protocol was provided.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes. The methodology is valid and the paaper offers enough details about the subject.


  • 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?

    More work should be done to improve it, but it is quite well done.


  • 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?

    Yes. The subject and the ideas supported are very outstanding and shoulb be discussed in any center.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a medicine teacher linked to neoplasia for the last 30 years.

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002544
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse