ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
Editor’s ReportArticle No. : #435
Title of Paper : Characterization uptake and cytotoxic of Radioiodine in MCF-7 and SKBR-3 Breast
Cancer Cell Lines Referee Name :
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ x ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed 2. Abstract
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ x] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
Abstract, line 12 -
16
significantly is not suitable sentence for comparison, statements should be revised.
Abstract line 18 -
22
to be sensitive or high sensitive? You did not expose cells with therapeutic dose, this sentence need to be revised
19
“among women” change with “among cancer patient women” (among women is questionable, but among cancer patient women is well known). “It present
………….that” change with “ As systemic disease it often that”
25 Omit the word “Clearly” …..
26 such as targeted therapy…….selectively that are 27 Omit “and are highly desirable
31 ……..the rate of patient survival…….
35 Point should be behind [2, 5, 6]
37 NIS (natrium iodine symporter, NaI), that means one sodium ion (Na
+), and one iodine ion (I
-)?
38 its gradient (it is not clear, do you mean Na
+and I
-ions?). Change with “ it ionic concentration gradient”. Beside in thyroid…….
39 ….is also expressed…….. 80% in invasive breast cancer that……
40 “ductal breast cancer” change with “ and it is commonly located in the glandular duct”
(invasive and ductal, information of behavior and position ). “ In principal” will be nicer change with “therefore”
43 “However” will be nicer if it changes with “There are”
45 - 47 This statement is confusing. “This condition” need explanation.
51 “Yet” will nicer if it changes with “ On the other hand”
56 … “is to compare”…… will be nicer if it changes with “ to characterize or to investigate? ” 58 “repsented” should be “represented”
69 -70 Thank you to a person could be mentioned at acknowledement. In the text it will be nice if just formal statement, for example “Hacat cells were obtained from ...(institution)”
115 Type of cells and the sample numbers of each type should be stated.
145 - 152 What is the different between statement at line 145 – 148 and that at line 148 – 150 ?.
154 - 156 Your work is to compare the uptake of MCF-7 with Hacal, whereas Nakamoto did between MCF-7 and MCF3B (with behavior was not mentioned). These two studies was
incomparable.
156 - 162 It should be there is explanation (reason) why this uptake need to be increased?
165 NIS (natrium iodine), the same question for line 37 245-246 This statement is not clear, should be revised
278 …….in MCF-7 cells are two-fold of SKBR. Please provided with quantitative data.
286-295 These statements are confusing, and should be revised
296 - 302 These statements are not explained clearly, and should be revised (example: what do you mean with time residence at line 298 and these conditions at line 302?,…..)
306 - 309 You did not measure the dose, how could take the result of your study related to the dose?
The statement should be revised
Final comments and recommendations:
1. The reason of using two types radioisotopes (I
125and I
131) should be mentioned.
2. The reference number in the text should be put in front of the end point of statement.
(………..[x].)
3. I appreciate this study, the result was interesting. The writer still need to be supervised in preparing the manuscript publication.
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ x ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
