Next Article in Journal
Non-Coding RNA Analyses of Seasonal Cambium Activity in Populus tomentosa
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Urothelial Carcinoma: A New Therapeutic Opportunity Moves from Bench to Bedside
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Glucose-Dependent Transcriptome in Murine Hypothalamic Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Perspectives in the Medical Treatment of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Beyond
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Angiogenesis Driven by the CEBPD–hsa-miR-429–VEGFA Signaling Axis Promotes Urothelial Carcinoma Progression

by Ti-Chun Chan 1,2, Chung-Hsi Hsing 1, Yow-Ling Shiue 3, Steven K. Huang 1,4, Kun-Lin Hsieh 1, Yu-Hsuan Kuo 1,5 and Chien-Feng Li 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 17 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 11 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cell Biology in Urothelial Cancer)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What is the mechanism of the hsa-miR-429 inhibitor? Is the inhibitor really specific to hsa-miR-429?

Fig 1 showed that miR-429 inhibit VEGFA expression induced by CEBPD. However, why is VEGFA positively associated with miR-429 expression in table.1?

Authors described that high status of CEBPD, VEGFA and microvascular density along with a low level of 311 hsa-miR-429 strongly associated with aggressiveness and adverse survival rate. However, given that the multivariate analysis revealed no significant correlation of VEGFA and has-miR-429 with prognosis, it seems like that these factors only indirectly, but not strongly, associated with adverse survival rate.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Many thanks,

Chien-Feng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present their work on deciphering the modulation of the CEBPD/hsa-miR-429/VEGFA axis on the progression of UC. This work is potentially interesting, however the clinical significance is unclear,

1. Particularly given the negative results of CALGB study (Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin With Bevacizumab or Placebo in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results of CALGB 90601 (Alliance) | Journal of Clinical Oncology (ascopubs.org). This should be discussed.

2. Also VEGF WB panel in figure 2 is blurry and needs to be replaced.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Many thanks,

Chien-Feng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments.

Back to TopTop