Critique: Tumor Suppressor Properties of the Splicing Regulatory Factor RBM10 (2070 words)

Read “Tumor suppressor properties of the splicing regulatory factor RBM10” article carefully, and then write a minimum of a three-page critique of the article. In your critique, you should briefly summarize the main theme of the article, and then discuss whether or not you agree with the conclusion and why. If the paper included lab work, then you mighty want to critique the experimental design. For example, would you have performed the same experiments? Why or why not? If the journal article is a cliff-hanger, describe what would you do next to gather more information to add to the story or to otherwise contribute to the body of knowledge.

This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.

The present research article has been published by the group of Juan Dr. Valca´rce from Spain and is based on the function of protein RBM10 (a member of the family of proteins containing RNA binding motif involved in alternative splicing), a regulator of NUMB expression that in turn regulates Notch signalling (Hernández et al., 2019). This work appears to be an extension of their path-breaking research paper published earlier in 2013 in Molecular cell in which they mention that the RBM5, 6 and 10, proteins differentially regulate NUMB alternative splicing for carcinogenesis (Bechara et al., 2019). However, after reading this paper from 2016, I was more amused and rather disappointed with many aspects. Initially, the article writing appeared to be a little clumsy. The topic of this research article indicates that they are studying the tumor suppressor properties of RBM10. Their Introduction starts with examples of a few RNA binding proteins involved in tumorigenesis, such as SRSF1 and then the mention of RBM10. However, very cleverly they omitted the names of RBM5 and RBM6 from the introduction of this research article when mentioning their own previous research study. They mention about RBM10 only skipping the mention of RBM5 and RBM6 although in their 2013 study they have clearly shown that the expression of these three is highly correlated and shows a typical pattern in various cancer cell lines. Thus RBM5, 6 and RBM10 might be interrelated in their function and an interplay of these three must be there. Hence, in my opinion, the omission of the names of RBM5 and RBM6 from the Introduction of this paper is not a good scientific practice executed by their group.
Now their first experiment in the HeLa cell line, mouse xenograft experiment with shRNA against RBM10 to shows that it represses xenograft tumor is appreciable but it is an extension of their earlier work published...