Submited on: 04 Dec 2011 08:33:21 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Dec 2011 08:44:24 AM GMT
 
Review on Genomics in Medical Science: An overview
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 13 May 2016 10:13:05 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The author talks about the  Genomics, types of Genomics studies and its various applications. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Overall the article seems to be shallow with disconnected sentences.

    Genomics methods, sequencing types , cost effectiness are not discussed. 

    Some sentences are repetitive and how different Genomics sequencing is different from the earlier methods is  not given in detail.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Importance of Human genome project and success of genomics in H1N1 outbreak follows previous literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The title is Genomics in Medical science, so more evidence of its use in Clinical lab for patient data must be presented.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    The author tries to explain the importance of a new technology and it can improved.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The Genomics technology is not explained in detail.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    More research on Genomics methodoligies and publications based on the RNASEQ, CHIP SEQ , Exome sequencing and its applications wil help.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. This paper is not outstanding. It lacks many details.


  • Other Comments:

    The article can be improved a lot.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have 8 publications with over 133 citations.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review on Genomics in Medical Science: An overview[Review of the article 'Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview ' by Kumar R].WebmedCentral 2011;7(5):WMCRW003287
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Genomics in Medical Science
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 05 Feb 2014 10:56:08 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The aim of this article is to provide a general overview of genomics in medical science.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes- this would be a great seminar for anyone involved in medical research.


  • Other Comments:

    The author presents very thorough sections on functional genomics, structural genomics, and comparative genomics.  Pharmacogenomics, a polygenic or genome-wide approach to identifying genetic determinants of drug response, is also discussed.  A section on epigenomics is presented. Epigenetics is the study of changes in the regulation of gene activity and expression which are independent of gene sequence.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    None

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Genomics in Medical Science[Review of the article 'Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview ' by Kumar R].WebmedCentral 2011;5(2):WMCRW002945
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview
Posted by Dr. Dave Siak-Wei Ow on 16 Dec 2011 09:13:55 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Comments:

     

    An overall general review on current directions after the completion of the human genome. On the whole, this review is informative and clear despite some typing errors that need to be corrected. Otherwise, I feel that there author could be too positive on the assessment of the promises of the field and could be more critical and mentioned on several limitations and shortcomings. For instance:

     

    On Comparative Genomics(page 5) – while the numbers of protein-coding genes in human comparable to the mouse and is small in the region of 30,000, and 99% of mouse genes have a sequence match in human, it should be noted that differences at the actual individual protein levels should be significantly more pronounced due to differences in alternative splicing between the two organisms and different post translational modifications (refer to http://www.uniprot.org/docs/ptmlist for list of known post translational modifications)  resulting in millions of species-unique protein species each possessing different functions. Hence, there are limits as well as merits to the use of knockout mouse models for understanding human diseases and metabolism.

     

    On Genetic vaccines (page 6) –While, DNA vaccines is indeed promising as a possible low-cost alternative to conventional inactivated or attenuated forms of causive pathogens, currently immunogenic efficiency is still low and cost-effective gene delivery to patients are areas that needs to be work on.

     

    Minor diction comments

    Page 1 – Under “How to cite the article:” Remove extra space between “overview” and period.

     

    Page 2 – First sentence under  “Genomics and Infectious disease: Current status” – Remove extra space at the end of sentence.

     

    Page 3 – Paragraph 2, sentence 1 under “Functional Genomics” – Either remove “[“ or replace with open “(“ and close “)” brackets

     

    Page 3 – “RNomics is study of sncRNAs on the genomic scale” instead of  “RNomics is studysncRNAs on the genomic scale”. Additionally, sncRNAs (small noncoding RNAs) could be defined the first time this term is used rather than having the definitions found in sequentially in the same paragraph.

     

    Page 4-6 – There are several missing spaces in sentences prohibiting reading clarity. The author should recheck and amend.

     

    Page 5 – Last paragraph – “high risk” instead of “high rik”

     

    Page 7 and 9 - Reference section: Inconsistent referencing style used.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Proteomics, Microarrays, DNA vaccines

  • How to cite:  Ow D .Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview [Review of the article 'Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview ' by Kumar R].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001272
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview
Posted by Mr. Govind N Purohit on 12 Dec 2011 06:06:56 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The Conclusion in the manuscript is too long and not pointing out the future direction. The authors should exclude references in the conclusions section and conclude the status of research instead of discussing the conclusions.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    no

  • How to cite:  Purohit G N.Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview[Review of the article 'Genomics in Medical Science: An Overview ' by Kumar R].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001232
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse