Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Circ_0081054 facilitates melanoma development via sponging miR‐637 and regulating RAB9A · 10.1111/srt.13313

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Circ_0081054 facilitates melanoma development via sponging miR‐637 and regulating RAB9A · 10.1111/srt.13313
Item: Circ_0081054 facilitates melanoma development via sponging miR‐637 and regulating RAB9A · 10.1111/srt.13313
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

CRITICAL

Critical rigor failure · Interventional Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.5.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

Critical findings

• internal_contradiction (high, corroborated): The data availability statement claims 'no new data were created or analyzed in this study,' which directly contradicts the entire experimental design, including qRT-PCR, Western blot, and xenograft data.
• internal_contradiction (high, corroborated): The data availability statement claims 'no new data were created or analyzed in this study', which directly contradicts the extensive experimental results presented (qPCR, Western blot, xenograft measurements, etc.).
• internal_contradiction (high, corroborated): The Data Availability Statement claims 'no new data were created or analyzed in this study', which directly contradicts the entire manuscript that presents new experimental data (qRT-PCR, western blot, xenograft measurements).

The study presents a plausible mechanistic hypothesis linking circ_0081054 to melanoma progression via the miR-637/RAB9A axis, and methods are generally detailed. However, the paper has critical gaps in data availability (the statement is factually wrong), statistical reporting (only threshold p-values, no effect sizes or assumption checks), and study design transparency (missing randomization, blinding, power analysis).

Three independent reviewers evaluated the full text; their ratings converged on all dimensions except biological variables and key resources, where minor disagreements were resolved by weighing the preponderance of evidence. The statistics component could not verify any test due to threshold-only p-values.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

7 integrity concerns flagged (3 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 5 warn · 1 fail

12 major claims1 overstated3 partial8 supported

The introduction cites multiple studies on circRNAs in melanoma (e.g., circ_0062270, circ_0084043, circ_0016418) and acknowledges that the role of circ_0081054 is unclear. The rationale linking circ_0081054 to melanoma development via a ceRNA mechanism is logically presented. Limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed, but the premise is well-supported.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on circRNAs in cancer and melanoma, and provides a logical rationale for investigating circ_0081054.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“For example, circ_0062270 regulated miR‐331‐3p/EPHA2 axis thus promoted melanoma development. CircRNA_0084043 regulated miR‐153‐3p to promote cell proliferation and metastasis in melanoma.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Circ_0081054 was upregulated in melanoma tissues, but, the role and regulatory mechanism of circ_0081054 in melanoma is still unclear.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not discussed.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper adequately establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on circRNAs in melanoma and providing a clear rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-5]

“The introduction reviews several circRNAs implicated in melanoma (e.g., circ_0062270, circ_0084043, circ_0016418) and explains the role of circRNA-miRNA interactions.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“In current study, we intended to measure dysregulations and biological roles of circ_0081054, miR-637 and RAB9A (member RAS oncogene family) in melanoma tissues and cell lines, and of note the potential ceRNA network of circ_0081054/miR-637/RAB9A was planned to be further predicted and validated.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed.

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The scientific premise is well established through citations of prior work on circRNAs in melanoma and a clear rationale linking circ_0081054 to the miR‐637/RAB9A axis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Circ_0062270 regulated miR‐331‐3p/EPHA2 axis thus promoted melanoma development.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 3 and 4]

“As predicted by online databases circBank and circular RNA interactome, circ_0081054 potentially bound to miR‐1204, miR‐637, miR‐1225‐3p, miR‐875‐5p.”

paraphrase[Introduction, last sentence]

“The paper states the role and regulatory mechanism of circ_0081054 in melanoma is still unclear, but does not explicitly discuss strengths/weaknesses of prior circRNA studies.”

The study uses cell lines and a xenograft model. Randomization and blinding are not reported for the in vivo experiment. No a priori power analysis is provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for tissue samples are not specified. Outlier handling is not described. However, the study includes appropriate controls (si-con, miR-con, pcDNA) and distinguishes biological replicates (three repeats of cell experiments). The in vivo experiment uses a small number of mice (18) without randomization or blinding.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitNOT REPORTED

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is partially rigorous; it lacks a power analysis, randomization, and blinding, but includes appropriate controls and replicates.

Evidence

absence[Methods, section 2.17]

No randomization method is reported for the in vivo experiment.

absence[Methods, section 2.18]

No power analysis is reported.

direct quote[Methods, section 2.6]

“Two small interfering RNAs (siRNA) against circ_0081054 (si‐circ_0081054 #1 and si‐circ_0081054 #2 ) and matched control (si‐con), inhibitor of miR‐637 (in‐miR‐637) and matched control (in‐miR‐con), mimic of miR‐637 (miR‐637) and matched control (miR‐con), RAB9A‐overexpressing plasmid (RAB9A) and matched control (pcDNA) were synthesized by RiboBio (Guangzhou, China).”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The study design has several gaps: randomization methods are not reported, no power analysis, no explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria for patient samples, and no independent replication cohort.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“A total of 18 male BALB/C mice (male; 5-week-old) purchased from SLAC (Shanghai, China) were kept in pathogen-free environment.”

absence[Methods]

No power analysis or sample size calculation is provided.

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“Fifty-two melanoma samples were collected in this study, and all normal skin tissues and melanoma tissues were identified and removed by experts”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The study design has several reporting gaps: no randomization method, power analysis, or outlier handling; biological/technical replicates are not distinguished; and the control for xenograft is partly described.

Evidence

absence[Methods, sections 2.6-2.18]

No randomization method or unit reported

absence[Methods, section 2.18]

No power analysis reported

direct quote[Methods, sections 2.6 and 2.17]

“Two small interfering RNAs (siRNA) against circ_0081054 (si‐circ_0081054 #1 and si‐circ_0081054 #2) and matched control (si‐con)”

The sex of the cell lines (A375, A2058, HEM, HUVECs) is not stated. The mouse xenograft uses only male mice without scientific justification. Age (5-week-old) and vendor are reported for mice, but weight is not. Housing conditions are described only as 'pathogen-free environment' with no details on light cycle, temperature, or enrichment. Can be considered adequate given typical reporting standards for this type of study.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedINADEQUATE

sex justifiedNOT REPORTED

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsNOT REPORTED

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Biological variables are partially reported; sex and age/weight are reported for mice, but health status and housing conditions are vague, and human demographics are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“A total of 18 male BALB/C mice (male; 5‐week‐old) purchased from SLAC (Shanghai, China) were kept in pathogen‐free environment.”

absence[Methods, section 2.1]

Human demographics are not reported.

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“were kept in pathogen‐free environment.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Sex of cell lines is not reported, and the animal experiment uses only male mice without justification. Age/weight of animals is partially reported, and housing conditions are vague.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“A total of 18 male BALB/C mice (male; 5-week-old)”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“were kept in pathogen-free environment.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Biological variables are adequately reported: sex of animals is stated, age and source are provided, species/strain are identified, and human tissue samples are described with relevant demographics.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“A total of 18 male BALB/C mice (male; 5‐week‐old) purchased from SLAC (Shanghai, China)”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“were kept in pathogen‐free environment”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“Fifty‐two melanoma samples were collected in this study”

The study reports approval from the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO. 1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University for human tissue collection, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The animal study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the same institution. Regulatory compliance is implied but not explicitly stated (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki).

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementADEQUATE

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported for both human and animal studies, with named committees and informed consent.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“This research was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO. 1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“All patients provided informed consent before starting this study.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“Animal study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO.1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are adequately reported for the human tissue collection, and the animal study received IACUC approval.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“This research was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO. 1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“Animal study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO.1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported: the human study has a named ethics committee and informed consent; the animal study has an IACUC statement with a named committee.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“This research was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO. 1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.1]

“All patients provided informed consent before starting this study.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.17]

“Animal study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Affiliated Huaian NO.1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.”

Antibodies are identified with catalog numbers and dilutions (e.g., HK2 ab227198, 1:1000). Cell lines are identified with source (ATCC, ScienCell). Reagents like Lipofectamine 3000 and kits are named with vendors. Software tools (SPSS 22.0, ImageJ) are named but versions are only given for SPSS. Primer sequences are provided in a table. No RRIDs are provided.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationINADEQUATE

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Key resources are partially identified; antibodies and cell lines are reported with catalog numbers, but software versions are missing and primer sequences are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.11]

“The antibodies (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) including: hexokinase II (HK2; ab227198, 1:1000), β‐actin (ab8227, 1:5,000), Goat Anti‐Rabbit IgG H&L secondary antibody (ab205718, 1:3000), RAB9A (ab235538, 1:2000).”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.2]

“Human epidermal melanocyte (HEM) was bought from ScienCell (Carlsbad, CA, USA)... Melanoma cell lines A375 and A2058 were bought from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA).”

absence[Methods]

Mycoplasma testing is not reported.

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Key resources including antibodies, cell lines, and reagents are adequately identified with vendors and catalog numbers. Software tools are named with versions.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.11]

“The antibodies (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) including: hexokinase II (HK2; ab227198, 1:1000), β-actin (ab8227, 1:5,000), Goat Anti-Rabbit IgG H&L secondary antibody (ab205718, 1:3000), RAB9A (ab235538, 1:2000).”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.2]

“Human epidermal melanocyte (HEM) was bought from ScienCell (Carlsbad, CA, USA)... Melanoma cell lines A375 and A2058 were bought from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA).”

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

Key resources are partially identified: cell lines and antibodies are reported with catalog numbers, but lots and authentication/mycoplasma testing are absent; software versions are mostly missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.11]

“hexokinase II (HK2; ab227198, 1:1000), β‐actin (ab8227, 1:5,000), Goat Anti‐Rabbit IgG H&L secondary antibody (ab205718, 1:3000), RAB9A (ab235538, 1:2000)”

absence[Methods, section 2.2]

Cell line authentication not reported

direct quote[Methods, section 2.18 and 2.9]

“SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)”

The paper states that 'Analysis of variance or Student's t-test' was used, and SPSS 22.0 was identified. However, exact p-values are not reported (only 'p < 0.05' is shown in figures). Test assumptions (normality, equal variance) are not verified. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported. Data presentation shows bar graphs with error bars, but individual data points are not shown. Mathematical plausibility cannot be assessed as raw data are not provided.

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesNOT REPORTED

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Statistical analysis is partially adequate; tests are named and software is identified, but exact p-values are not reported, assumptions are not verified, and effect sizes are missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.18]

“Analysis of variance or Student's t‐test was used to analyze relevant data through SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).”

direct quote[Results, section 3.1]

“* p < 0.05.”

absence[Methods, section 2.18]

Test assumptions are not verified.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named and software is identified, but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are not reported (only p < 0.05), and effect sizes with confidence intervals are absent.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.18; Results figures]

“p < 0.05 indicated the statistical difference was conspicuous.”

absence[Methods, section 2.18]

Test assumptions are not verified.

absence[Results]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

Statistical analysis is partially reported: tests are named and software identified, but exact p-values, effect sizes, and CI are absent; assumptions are not verified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.18]

“Analysis of variance or Student's t‐test was used to analyze relevant data through SPSS 22.0”

direct quote[Results, figures]

“* p < 0.05”

absence[Methods/Results]

No effect sizes or CI reported

The data availability statement says 'Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.' This is clearly false, as the study generated qRT-PCR, Western blot, and other experimental data. No data are deposited in any repository. No code is shared.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersNOT REPORTED

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data availability is inadequately reported; the statement claims no new data were created, which contradicts the study's generation of experimental data.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability Statement]

“Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.”

absence[Data Availability Statement]

No data repository deposit is mentioned.

absence[Methods]

No code sharing is mentioned.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

The data availability statement is contradictory: it states 'no new data were created or analyzed' despite the study clearly generating new experimental data. No data or code are made available in any repository.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability Statement]

“Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

The data availability statement is present but contradictory: it states 'no new data were created or analyzed', which conflicts with the presented experimental results, and no code is shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability Statement]

“Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.”

absence[All sections]

No code repository mentioned

absence[All sections]

No data repository deposit

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication. Limitations are briefly discussed (e.g., 'the in vivo experiment only investigated the expression of miR‐637 and RAB9A in the primary tumors from A375 cells'). Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and conflicts of interest are reported. No reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is referenced. Trial registration is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedINADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Reporting transparency is partially adequate; methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional, but no reporting guideline is referenced and trial registration is not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, sections 2.1-2.18]

“Quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR) assay was employed to evaluate RNA expression.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 2]

“However, the in vivo experiment only investigated the expression of miR‐637 and RAB9A in the primary tumors from A375 cells.”

absence[Methods]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are reproducible, funding and COI are stated, and conclusions are proportional, but limitations are not discussed and no reporting guideline is referenced.

Evidence

absence[Discussion]

No discussion of limitations or sources of bias.

direct quote[Funding Information, Conflict of Interest Statement]

“The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Reporting transparency is mixed: methods are complete enough for replication, funding and COI are stated, but no trial registration, reporting guideline, or discussion of all outcomes (including negatives) is included.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, sections 2.1-2.18]

“Experimental procedures (qRT-PCR, cell culture, transfections, assays) are described with specific kits, protocols, and conditions.”

absence[Methods]

No reporting guideline referenced

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 2]

“Further investigation should focus on the function of miR‐637 and RAB9A on tumor formation in vivo.”

23 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Checked 28 references: 15 verified — 13 unresolved.

Reproducibility

2 data/code links checked; 2 live.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

Post-publication, an informed reader should weigh the factually incorrect data availability statement and the threshold-only p-values as serious methodological limitations that undermine reproducibility. The unsupported therapeutic claim ('promising target for melanoma treatment') requires tempering. An erratum correcting the data availability statement and a re-analysis reporting exact p-values and effect sizes would substantially strengthen the paper.

1.
CRITICALdata code
Replace the data availability statement with an accurate one (e.g., 'The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.'). [Data Availability Statement]
The current statement claims 'no new data were created', which is factually incorrect and undermines trust in the manuscript.
2.
CRITICALreporting
Temper the claim 'Circ_0081054 is a promising target for melanoma treatment' to reflect that the evidence is limited to in vitro and xenograft models, with no clinical data. [Discussion/Conclusion]
An unsupported therapeutic claim in a preclinical study is a common reason for reviewer objection and can mislead readers.
3.
CRITICALreporting
Resolve the inconsistency between Methods (wound healing assay for invasion) and Results/Figure legends (Transwell assay for invasion) by correcting one to match the other. [Methods, section 2.8 or Results, section 3.4]
This internal contradiction raises questions about which assay was actually performed and could indicate a copy-paste error.
4.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values (e.g., p = 0.023) and effect sizes with confidence intervals for all statistical tests instead of only threshold p-values. [Results, all sections]
Threshold-only p-values (p < 0.05) are insufficient for precise interpretation and reproducibility; the statistics component could verify no tests due to this omission.
5.
HIGHstatistics
Verify and report statistical test assumptions (normality, equal variance) and describe actions taken if violated. [Methods, section 2.18]
Without assumption verification, the validity of the chosen tests (t-test, ANOVA) is unknown.
6.
HIGHreporting
Report demographic details (age, sex, race/ethnicity) of the 52 melanoma patients and describe how normal skin tissues were obtained (matched from same patients or from healthy donors). [Methods, section 2.1]
Baseline demographics are essential for assessing generalizability and potential confounding.
7.
HIGHrigor
Include a statement on randomization and blinding for the in vivo xenograft experiment. [Methods, section 2.17]
Lack of reported randomization and blinding is a major design flaw that increases risk of bias, especially in a small animal study (n=18).
8.
HIGHrigor
Provide an a priori power analysis or sample size justification for the in vivo experiment. [Methods, section 2.18]
A power analysis demonstrates that the study is adequately sized to detect meaningful effects.
9.
HIGHrigor
Report cell line authentication (e.g., STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing status. [Methods, section 2.2]
Cell line misidentification and contamination are common in biomedical research and invalidate results; reporting authentication is now standard.
10.
HIGHreporting
Reference an appropriate reporting guideline, e.g., ARRIVE for the animal study. [Methods]
Following reporting guidelines improves completeness and transparency; journals increasingly require them.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Justify the use of only male mice in the xenograft experiment and discuss potential influence of sex on melanoma biology. [Methods, section 2.17]
Single-sex studies should include a scientific justification; reviewers and editors expect this.
12.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify housing conditions for mice (light/dark cycle, temperature, enrichment, group housing). [Methods, section 2.17]
Incomplete housing information limits reproducibility of the animal study.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Distinguish biological from technical replicates in cell experiments. [Methods, sections 2.6-2.10]
The paper only states 'three repeats'; clarifying this is important for proper interpretation of variability.
14.
MEDIUMreporting
Report inclusion/exclusion criteria for the 52 melanoma tissue samples. [Methods, section 2.1]
Without criteria, the sample may be subject to selection bias, and the study's external validity is unclear.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the duplicate 'cells cells' in Results sections 3.4 and 3.6. [Results, sections 3.4, 3.6]
Typographical error that should be corrected for professionalism.
16.
LOWcopyedit
Correct subject-verb agreement in Methods section 2.9: change 'chambers was' to 'chamber was'. [Methods, section 2.9]
Grammar error that should be corrected.
17.
LOWcopyedit
Re-label Figure 3 panels (panel D is missing; labels jump from C to E). [Figure 3 legend]
Inconsistent labeling can confuse readers.
18.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the inconsistent abbreviation in Figure 4A: change 'im-miR-con' to 'in-miR-con' to match the text. [Figure 4A]
A typo in a figure label may cause interpretation errors.

Full text (40,233 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →