Targeting CAM-DR and Mitochondrial Transfer for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author here presented a comprehensive review on “ Targeting CAM-DR and mitochondrial transfer” as a probable target towards determining the treatment regimen for treating multiple myeloma. In this review, the author has discussed both the targets CAM-DR and mitochondrial transfer together in a review which is distinct.
Here are my few comments that can improve the quality of manuscript:
1. Author has presented a schematic to show the interaction of MM cells with BMSC and probable targets to inhibit these interaction as a prospective treatment routes. It would be great to include a table with targets, origin, drugs/ treatment available and references.
2. Line no. 32- Modify “lytic bone lesions” with Osteolytic bone lesions”.
3. Author has included too many references in the manuscript, they may think of including only very relavant references and trim down the rest.
4. Author should explain that there are many reviews published recently on these targets, how the present review stands different from others?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author here presented a comprehensive review on “Targeting CAM-DR and mitochondrial transfer” as a probable target towards determining the treatment regimen for treating multiple myeloma. In this review, the author has discussed both the targets CAM-DR and mitochondrial transfer together in a review which is distinct.
Here are my few comments that can improve the quality of manuscript:
- Author has presented a schematic to show the interaction of MM cells with BMSC and probable targets to inhibit these interaction as a prospective treatment routes. It would be great to include a table with targets, origin, drugs/ treatment available and references.
As suggested, we prepared Table 1 including targets, drugs/treatment available and references based on Figure 1.
- Line no. 32- Modify “lytic bone lesions” with Osteolytic bone lesions”.
As suggested, we modified the text accordingly.
- Author has included too many references in the manuscript, they may think of including only very relavant references and trim down the rest.
We appreciate your suggestion very much. We have scrutinized and compiled these references, so we are afraid that it is difficult to trim down these.
- Author should explain that there are many reviews published recently on these targets, how the present review stands different from others?
We agree with the reviewer’s comment. In the area of myeloma research, many reviews based on CAM-DR have been reported, but only a few reviews related to drugs/treatments targeting mitochondrial transfer on TNT have been reported. Therefore, our review summarizes these topics in an easy-to-understand manner, including the latest findings, and can be differentiated from previous reviews.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is a concise review of a particular topic and can be recommended for publication in Current oncology in its current form. Thanks.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? A. The authors described the mechanism involved in generating resistance to drugs known as cell adhesion mediated drug resistance arising in multiple myeloma in the form of a concise review to describe the druggable targets involved in the mechanism. 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why? A. The topic is already described in other studies and is new in terms of clinical practice and therefore provides an opportunity for relevant readers to form hypotheses for their own studies. 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? A. It provides a simplistic version of a very specific niche area of study and therefore deliver a recommendation or reference in the subject area. It is a review of literature not a novel study but still useful for the field. 4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology? A. It is a review and therefore does not require change in methodology. 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? A. Yes. The problem or background is sufficient and sufficient literature is covered in the manuscript. 6. Are the references appropriate?A. Yes. 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
A. There is only one figure in the manuscript and gives a holistic approach to look at the subject area and is enough to describe the main points discussed in the manuscript.
Author Response
We appreciate your review of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Cell adhesion mediated drug resistance is an important topic and the authors do a good job reviewing interactions between MM cells and the niche. I was especially intrigued by the notion of mitochondrial transfer between MM cells and BMSCs via the TNT and dependent on CD38.
Author Response
We appreciate your review of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
