Elena Yakubovich, Russian institute of radiology and new surgical technologies
20 February 2012
The study by Wu et al shows the decreased expression of DUSP9 in ccRCC. The authors claim that DUSP9 may represent a novel and useful prognostic marker for ccRCC and that for their knowledge this is the first study to report the clinical significance of DUSP9 in ccRCC. In this connection we would like to refer to our similar results that have been published previously. The study reported in 2002 has revealed for the first time the down-regulation of DUSP9 in ccRCC [1]. In the study published in 2006 we determined DUSP9 mRNA level in clinical samples from patients at different stage of renal cancer [2]. It has been shown that DUSP9 inactivation was observed even in the early stage of the disease.
Then, we would like to point to some errors in the article. Above all we would like to address the question about the primers used in real-time qPCR reaction and provided in section MATERIAL AND METHODS. From our BLAST search the sequences of these primers match up to PNCK gene but not to DUSP9. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this issue.
We would also like to mention several other mistakes in the text that are not so important but that we¿d like to point out. In section RESULTS on page 5 the authors refer to the data presented in the table 1. However, their description of the results is not in agreement with the data in the table1.
It is necessary to notice that authors seem to be inaccurate in citing the literature, and provide wrong interpretation of the results in the cited works. For example, on page 7 authors write: «DUSP-9 is known to be associated with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and can independently induce SCC». In connection with this statement the authors refer to the paper where there were no direct experimental evidences for induction of tumor development by the loss of DUSP9. That study only showed DUSP9 downregulation in chemically/UVB light induced tumors.
Finally, the authors sometimes use incorrect references in the citations. For example, on page 6 the authors cite the study reported in[8], but refer to [9] from reference list. On page 7 instead of [5] shoulb be cited the [6].
1. Cheburkin IuV, Kniazeva TG, Peter S, et al. Molecular portrait of human kidney carcinomas: the gene expression profiling of protein-tyrosine kinases and tyrosine phosphatases which controlled regulatory signals in the cells. Mol Biol (Mosk).2002, 36:480-90 (English version of the manuscript can be accessed via the following link http://0-www-springerlink-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/content/kx56r70473692234)
2. Granov AM, Yakubovich EI, Evtushenko VI. Analysis of gene expression profiles for diagnostic of renal and prostate cancers. Medical Academic Journal (Saint-Petersburg) 2006, 6: 131-139 (English abstract can be accessed via the following link http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9298258)
errors in the articles
20 February 2012
The study by Wu et al shows the decreased expression of DUSP9 in ccRCC. The authors claim that DUSP9 may represent a novel and useful prognostic marker for ccRCC and that for their knowledge this is the first study to report the clinical significance of DUSP9 in ccRCC. In this connection we would like to refer to our similar results that have been published previously. The study reported in 2002 has revealed for the first time the down-regulation of DUSP9 in ccRCC [1]. In the study published in 2006 we determined DUSP9 mRNA level in clinical samples from patients at different stage of renal cancer [2]. It has been shown that DUSP9 inactivation was observed even in the early stage of the disease.
Then, we would like to point to some errors in the article. Above all we would like to address the question about the primers used in real-time qPCR reaction and provided in section MATERIAL AND METHODS. From our BLAST search the sequences of these primers match up to PNCK gene but not to DUSP9. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this issue.
We would also like to mention several other mistakes in the text that are not so important but that we¿d like to point out. In section RESULTS on page 5 the authors refer to the data presented in the table 1. However, their description of the results is not in agreement with the data in the table1.
It is necessary to notice that authors seem to be inaccurate in citing the literature, and provide wrong interpretation of the results in the cited works. For example, on page 7 authors write: «DUSP-9 is known to be associated with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and can independently induce SCC». In connection with this statement the authors refer to the paper where there were no direct experimental evidences for induction of tumor development by the loss of DUSP9. That study only showed DUSP9 downregulation in chemically/UVB light induced tumors.
Finally, the authors sometimes use incorrect references in the citations. For example, on page 6 the authors cite the study reported in[8], but refer to [9] from reference list. On page 7 instead of [5] shoulb be cited the [6].
1. Cheburkin IuV, Kniazeva TG, Peter S, et al. Molecular portrait of human kidney carcinomas: the gene expression profiling of protein-tyrosine kinases and tyrosine phosphatases which controlled regulatory signals in the cells. Mol Biol (Mosk).2002, 36:480-90 (English version of the manuscript can be accessed via the following link http://0-www-springerlink-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/content/kx56r70473692234)
2. Granov AM, Yakubovich EI, Evtushenko VI. Analysis of gene expression profiles for diagnostic of renal and prostate cancers. Medical Academic Journal (Saint-Petersburg) 2006, 6: 131-139 (English abstract can be accessed via the following link http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9298258)
Competing interests
non