Structured PREreview of Identification of Potential Hub Genes and Therapeutic Targets in Colorectal Cancer Using Integrated Bioinformatics Approaches

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explains the objective of the research. It explicitly states that the study aims to use bioinformatic tools to identify key genes involved in colorectal cancer (CRC) development and evaluate their potential as therapeutic targets or biomarkers. The objectives include analyzing microarray data to identify upregulated genes, constructing protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks, performing functional and pathway enrichment analyses (GO/KEGG), and correlating gene expression with survival outcomes and cancer progression. These goals are clearly outlined in the final paragraph of the introduction section.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Yes, the methods are well-suited as they systematically employ established bioinformatics tools (e.g., GEO2R, STRING, Cytoscape) and multi-database validation (TCGA, cBioPortal, HPA) to identify, analyze, and validate CRC-related hub genes, aligning with the study's objectives of discovering prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

Yes, the conclusions are partially supported by the data, as bioinformatics analyses and survival correlations suggest associations between the hub genes (CXCL8, FOXC1, ICOS, MCF2) and CRC prognosis, but limitations such as borderline statistical significance, low mutation rates, and absence of experimental validation temper confidence in their definitive clinical relevance.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

Yes, the data presentations are sufficient for general use but lack accessibility features (e.g., colorblind-friendly palettes, alternative text labels, or patterns for color-dependent graphs) to ensure usability for all patrons. Enhancements like error bars, explicit statistical annotations, and inclusive design (e.g., avoiding color-only distinctions) would improve universal accessibility.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors sufficiently contextualize their findings within colorectal cancer (CRC) biology and propose plausible biomarker/therapeutic roles for identified hub genes, but their discussion lacks critical engagement with methodological limitations (e.g., uncorrected statistical thresholds, blood-tissue sample biases) and offers only generalized next steps, omitting concrete experimental or clinical validation strategies necessary to translate findings into actionable insights.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

The preprint has moderate potential to advance academic knowledge by systematically identifying novel CRC-associated hub genes (CXCL8, FOXC1, ICOS, MCF2) and proposing hypotheses for biomarker/therapeutic exploration, but its impact is constrained by methodological limitations (e.g., uncorrected statistical thresholds, reliance on computational data) and the absence of experimental validation needed to confirm biological or clinical relevance.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

Yes, the preprint would benefit from targeted language editing to resolve grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., punctuation, passive voice), standardize terminology (e.g., CRC vs. colorectal cancer), and improve clarity in dense technical sections, thereby enhancing readability, professionalism, and accessibility for diverse audiences.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

I recommend this preprint to bioinformaticians and computational researchers for its systematic identification of novel CRC-associated hub genes (CXCL8, FOXC1, ICOS, MCF2) and robust methodological framework (integrating GEO, TCGA, and multi-omics tools), but caution that its hypothesis-generating findings require experimental validation to confirm biological or clinical relevance, limiting immediate utility for experimentalists/clinicians.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.