Minor Essential Revisions:

1. The abstract contains an unnecessary ‘Table’ reference in the ‘Findings’ section.
2. Some sentences of the manuscript refer that all of the 13 samples were tested with each platform, which is certainly not the case: for example, the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 3. Furthermore, squares in Table 1 indicate that each platform had been tested for all of the samples, which is not in line with the ‘Sample description’.
3. The legend of ‘Figure 1’ contains a text that might belong to ‘Table 1’ instead, regarding the square symbol indication.

Additional comment:
In comparison to Chatterjee et al., 2015, Science Report 5:10438, the manuscript contains additional descriptions. Although ‘Table 1’ was part of the previous article but only in the supplementary information, nevertheless this table contains necessary information regarding the potential reuse of the data set. ‘Figure 1’ is a modified, extended and detailed illustration as compared with the figure in the previous article. Furthermore, indications for future use are included in the text as how the collected miRNA expression results would mean a valuable data for those who are interested, especially the unique sample 5, and also for the fact that hepatoblastoma is a rare disease with yet unknown etiology.


Level of interest An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English Acceptable
Statistical review No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests I declare that I have no competing interest below.

Authors' response to reviewers: (http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/imedia/5963146581888086_comment.pdf)

The reviewed version of the manuscript can be seen here:

All revised versions are also available:
Draft -