REVIEWERS COMMENTS PLUS REBUTTAL LETTER
This manuscript explores the in vivo models for leukemogenesis. It
has many good features including
comprehensive tabulation of the models currently published in the
literature. It also deals with the use
of ES cell mediated development for leukemia models effectively
before moving on to the equally
important and valuable retroviral mediated gene transfer models
that have been used to great effect in
defining transforming properties of, for example, chromosome
translocation products.
The review has a scholarly nature, especially in the final two thirds.
The abstract and introduction are
more disappointing.
The abstract needs to be completely rewritten with careful attention
to detail. The sentence beginning
"furthermore" is unfathomable. What does "the compartment"
mean?
The first phase of the introduction also disappoints. The authors
need to think about what they are
trying to say in these initial phases and set out the aims of the
review more clearly.
Sentences like the one beginning 8 lines up on page 7 need more
thought. Similarly the 1st sentence of
the 2nd paragraph on page 10.
The use of transgenic as a noun needs to be considered as do words
like inactuate.
Equally sentences like that on page 15 line 3 need thought as to
construction and precision. In this case
control comparators need to be mentioned.
The authors need to think more too about the target audience as
non hematologists. Clear but concise
explanation of detail in key areas would help, like the use of the
word compartment, see above.
As stated previously the authors draw the right conclusions on
where this field is at presently but there
is work to do on the manuscript.
One minor point is that theophyline is a cAMP phosphodiesterase
inhibitor
Re: MS#ONC-2007-00800AE2 "Review: Genetic Models of Acute Myeloid
Leukaemia".
Dear Editor,
Sincerest thanks for your response and reviewers comments on our manuscript. We
sincerely apologise for the great time it has taken us to respond to these comments
(due to force majeaure with first author), and hope that a revised version of the
manuscript will still be considered by Oncogene. We have modified the paper in
response to the extensive and insightful reviewer comments. We have
added additional explanations for non-haematologists and additional table (Table 1)
to fully address the reviewer’s comments. Furthermore we have rewritten sections of
the manuscript and we hope that this comply with the referee’s remarks. We will
respond to the comments point counter point.
1. This manuscript explores the in vivo models for leukemogenesis. It has many
good features including comprehensive tabulation of the models currently published
in the literature. It also deals with the use of ES cell mediated development for
leukemia models effectively before moving on to the equally important and valuable
retroviral mediated gene transfer models that have been used to great effect in
defining transforming properties of, for example, chromosome translocation products.
The review has a scholarly nature, especially in the final two thirds. The abstract and
introduction are more disappointing. The abstract needs to be completely rewritten
with careful attention to detail.
We have rewritten both the abstract and introduction in line with the reviewer’s
comments. We hope that these sections now give more focus to the scope of this
review.
2. The sentence beginning "furthermore" is unfathomable.
This sentence has been revised.
3. What does "the compartment" mean?
The use of the word “compartment” has been completely revised and replaced
throughout the manuscript with more precise definitions
4. The first phase of the introduction also disappoints. The authors need to think
about what they are trying to say in these initial phases and set out the aims of the
review more clearly.
Please see point 1.
5. Sentences like the one beginning 8 lines up on page 7 need more thought.
Similarly the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 10.
Both these sentences have been rewritten, and we suggest that these revisions give
greater clarity to
the points being made.
6. The use of transgenic as a noun needs to be considered, as do words like
inactuate.
We agree with the reviewers and have revised use of these words accordingly.
7. Equally sentences like that on page 15 line 3 need thought as to construction and
precision. In this case control comparators need to be mentioned.
In response to this comment we have reconstructed the sentence and included
relevant control comparators for mice treated with ENU.
8. The authors need to think more too about the target audience as nonhematologists. Clear but concise explanation of detail in key areas would help, like
the use of the word compartment, see above.
We have now included explanations of key terms and greater definition of human
AML biology for non-haematologists throughout the text, particularly in the
introduction and start of new sections where particular models are discussed e.g.
APL models (page 6, last paragraph) AML/ETO (page 9, last paragraph) etc. or
terms introduced e.g. MDS (page 11 line 1). Furthermore we have included a
new table (Table 1), which outlines the clinical and biological characteristics of AML,
for non- haematologists.