Cell Surface Lipoprotein Lipase Enzyme as A Prognostic Indicator in B-Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest as it focuses on the potential prognostic value of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) surface protein expression in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract includes all necessary components: it introduces the topic and the importance of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), describes the methodology used (an antibody developed at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth used as a flow cytometry marker), presents the main findings (LPL surface protein expression trended toward a protective effect on overall survival and overall better prognosis), and indicates the implications of these results.

However, the abstract does not provide a list of keywords. Appropriate keywords for this study could include: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, lipoprotein lipase, surface protein expression, prognostic indicator, flow cytometry, overall survival, and prognosis. These keywords would help to categorize the study and make it easier for other researchers to find.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: Yes, the paper's structure is coherent and aligns well with the goal of the paper. It begins with an abstract summarizing the study, followed by a detailed discussion section that delves into the complex role of LPL mRNA and surface protein expression in CLL. It explores the potential mechanisms by which LPL may impact CLL prognosis and the possible reasons for the observed results.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

Comments: Yes, the methods used by the author are adequate and well-applied. The development of the novel antibody is well-described, and the process of collecting samples, isolating PBMCs, performing flow cytometry, and analyzing the data is also well-executed. The use of Kaplan-Meier and age/stage-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for examining the differences between groups is an appropriate approach for this study.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: Yes, the results presented in this abstract are coherent and directly related to the previously discussed methods and study design. The authors used flow cytometry to analyze LPL surface protein expression in patient samples, and then used statistical methods to correlate these findings with clinical outcomes such as overall survival and time to first treatment. The data suggest that high LPL expression may have a protective effect in CLL, which aligns with the original study objective.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author effectively utilizes relevant literature throughout the discussion. They cite previous studies that have identified LPL mRNA levels as a prognostic indicator in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and delve into the complexities of this relationship, noting how LPL mRNA expression is often different from surface LPL protein expression. They also cite studies that have explored the genetic and epigenetic factors that could explain these differences, such as IGHV mutational status and methylation patterns.

Moreover, they consider the potential roles of co-factors like ApoC-II and GPIHBP1 in LPL function, drawing on studies from the wider field of cancer research. They also explore how LPL might interact with other known pathways and processes in CLL, including B-cell activation, BCR signaling, and tumor microenvironment interactions, all of which have been extensively studied in CLL.

Lastly, they link their findings to current treatment strategies for CLL, citing studies that suggest existing therapies might work by inhibiting fatty acid metabolism, a process in which LPL is directly involved.

Overall, the author’s use of literature is comprehensive and relevant, providing a thorough context for their findings and helping to elucidate the potential mechanisms and implications of LPL expression in CLL.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, the case report is generally clear and understandable.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper presents an interesting study exploring the role of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) surface protein expression as a prognostic marker in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The methodology is sound, and the findings provide new insights into the complex relationships between LPL expression, CLL prognosis, and various genetic and epigenetic factors.

However, there are a few areas where the paper could be improved:

1.     Sample Size: The sample size of the study is quite small (n=19), which limits the power of the statistical analyses and the generalizability of the findings. A larger sample size would increase confidence in the results and allow for more nuanced analyses.

2.     Correlation with LPL mRNA Expression: The authors note that it would have been beneficial to measure LPL mRNA expression in their samples to see how it correlates with LPL surface protein expression. This could provide additional insights into the mechanisms driving differences in LPL expression and their impact on CLL prognosis.

3.     Exploration of Co-Factor Expression: The authors suggest that future studies could measure the expression of co-factors like Apo-C-II and GPIHBP1 to determine how functional the expressed LPL proteins are. This could provide a more complete picture of the role of LPL in CLL.

4.     Analysis of Treatment Response: The authors mention that current CLL treatments might work by inhibiting fatty acid metabolism, a process in which LPL is involved. It would be interesting to analyze whether patients' responses to these treatments are correlated with their LPL expression levels.

In conclusion, while the study is well-executed and contributes valuable insights into the prognostic role of LPL in CLL, there is room for further research to deepen our understanding of these relationships and their potential implications for treatment.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes, I would recommend this manuscript for further publication. However, it would be beneficial for the authors to address the limitations and potential improvements mentioned in the previous comments. This includes increasing the sample size, measuring LPL mRNA expression, examining co-factor expression, and analyzing treatment response relative to LPL expression. Addressing these points will enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript.

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team