| name | cc-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing prose for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript — the Summary/Introduction/Results/Discussion craft, claim calibration, and Cell Press nomenclature/house style. It edits language and framing; it does not design experiments or build figures. |
Writing Style & Claim Calibration (cc-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The Results read like a lab notebook rather than a mechanistic narrative
- The Discussion overstates therapeutic / clinical impact
- Claims outrun the evidence (single-system conclusions stated broadly)
- Nomenclature, tense, or section structure are inconsistent with Cell Press
Cell Press article structure (narrative roles)
| Section | Role |
|---|
| Summary | One-paragraph mechanistic arc (see cc-structured-abstract) |
| Introduction | Concise; the gap and the hypothesis, not a textbook review |
| Results | The mechanistic story, figure by figure, each claim tied to data |
| Discussion | Interpretation, limitations, and calibrated translational implications |
| STAR Methods | Structured methods + Key Resources Table (see cc-reporting-standards) |
Results: write the mechanism as a story
- Open each Results subsection with the question/claim, then the evidence, then the conclusion.
- Each paragraph maps to a figure/panel; every assertion cites a panel.
- Foreground causality and orthogonal validation ("loss of X reduced Y in cells and in PDX tumors") over a list of assays.
- Use past tense for what was done/found; present tense for established facts.
Claim calibration (the signature Cancer Cell discipline)
Match verb strength to evidence strength:
| Evidence | Acceptable verb |
|---|
| Correlation in human data | "associated with," "correlates with" |
| Perturbation in cells | "promotes," "is required for" (in this system) |
| In vivo perturbation | "drives," "is necessary in vivo" |
| In vivo efficacy + human data | "represents a therapeutic vulnerability" |
- Do not call a target "therapeutic" without in vivo efficacy and/or human evidence.
- Distinguish "necessary" from "sufficient"; do not conflate the two.
- State limitations explicitly (model caveats, single-cohort findings) — reviewers reward candor.
- Avoid "novel," "first," "unprecedented," "proves"; let the data carry the weight.
Nomenclature & house style
- Use approved gene/protein nomenclature (HGNC for human, MGI for mouse); italicize genes, roman for proteins; correct species capitalization (human BRCA1 vs mouse Brca1).
- Define each abbreviation once; keep terminology consistent across text, figures, and front matter.
- Cite using the Cell Press reference style (verify current format); reference key prior work fairly.
- Active voice and direct sentences; avoid hedging chains ("might possibly suggest").
Worked micro-edit: a Results paragraph in Cancer Cell voice
Before (assay catalog, verb outruns evidence):
To study MARK7, we performed RNA-seq, which showed many changes. Western blot confirmed
knockdown. We also did a migration assay and saw differences. These novel results prove MARK7
is a promising therapeutic target that drives metastasis in patients.
After (claim → evidence → conclusion, calibrated):
MARK7 depletion reprogrammed the CAF secretome (Figure 3A; RNA-seq, n=4 donors), reducing lactate
exporter transcripts, and this loss was confirmed at protein level with densitometry across three
independent blots (Figure 3B). Functionally, MARK7 loss was required for CAF-driven tumor-cell
migration in the co-culture system (Figure 3C). Because these data are cell-intrinsic, we tested
the axis in vivo below before making any therapeutic statement.
The "after" ties each sentence to a panel and an n, uses "required for" for a single-system
perturbation, and defers the translational verb until in vivo evidence exists — the Cancer Cell
reflex of never letting the Results outrun the systems tested.
Discussion craft (where Cancer Cell papers over- or under-claim)
- Open the Discussion by restating the mechanism with direction, not by re-summarizing every figure.
- Devote one honest paragraph to model limitations: cell-line artifacts, xenograft immune context,
cohort size and retrospective design, and whether efficacy is genetic (knockout) vs. pharmacologic.
- Separate what the data show from what a clinician would need — a preclinical vulnerability is
a hypothesis for a trial, not a treatment recommendation.
- End on a proportionate significance line that a skeptical referee would sign off on.
Referee reflexes to preempt
Cancer Cell reviewers read prose against the figures. Common language flags they raise:
- "The authors write 'drives tumorigenesis' but show only correlation in the human cohort" — verb/evidence mismatch.
- "The Summary claims a therapy; the paper has no in vivo efficacy" — front-matter overreach.
- "Necessary and sufficient are used interchangeably" — mechanistic imprecision.
- "Every finding is 'novel' and 'striking'" — hype that erodes trust in the real result.
- "Mouse gene written as human (uppercase, non-italic)" — nomenclature sloppiness that signals weak rigor.
Fix these at the language layer before they become review comments.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Results as an assay catalog with no narrative thread
- Overstated translational/therapeutic claims beyond the data
- Conclusions generalized from a single system
- "Novel/first/unprecedented/proves" sprinkled throughout
- Inconsistent gene nomenclature or species capitalization
- A Discussion with no limitations paragraph
Output format
【Results narrative】claim→evidence→conclusion per subsection? Y/N
【Claim calibration】overstated verbs flagged: [...]
【Therapeutic claims】backed by in vivo/human? Y/N
【Limitations】present in Discussion? Y/N
【Nomenclature】gene/protein/species correct & consistent? Y/N
【Hype words】removed? Y/N
【Next step】cc-cover-letter or cc-submission
