Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 3Date:12 July 2012
Reviewer: Michael Miller
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. Please make it more clear why the 8 validated proteins were chosen from the
29 differentially expressed proteins. What criteria were used for selecting these 8
proteins?
2. Please make it more clear how you arrived at the upper and lower limits for
iTRAQ expression - explain the process of deciding 0.72 - 1.4 as the lower and
upper cut offs for significance. Did you make any effort to assess the labelling
error associated with the iTRAQ labelling process?? ie did you have a parent
control sample labelled with 113 and 114 and compare the ratios??
Minor
1. Figure 2 legends are muddled - the main text suggests Fig 2C is a typical
spectra and 2D is the isoelectric points - not so.
2. Numerous grammatical errors throughout - these need to be addressed and
corrected
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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 interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 3Date:12 July 2012
Reviewer: Michael Miller
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. Please make it more clear why the 8 validated proteins were chosen from the
29 differentially expressed proteins. What criteria were used for selecting these 8
proteins?
2. Please make it more clear how you arrived at the upper and lower limits for
iTRAQ expression - explain the process of deciding 0.72 - 1.4 as the lower and
upper cut offs for significance. Did you make any effort to assess the labelling
error associated with the iTRAQ labelling process?? ie did you have a parent
control sample labelled with 113 and 114 and compare the ratios??
Minor
1. Figure 2 legends are muddled - the main text suggests Fig 2C is a typical
spectra and 2D is the isoelectric points - not so.
2. Numerous grammatical errors throughout - these need to be addressed and
corrected
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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 interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 3Date:12 July 2012
Reviewer: Michael Miller
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. Please make it more clear why the 8 validated proteins were chosen from the
29 differentially expressed proteins. What criteria were used for selecting these 8
proteins?
2. Please make it more clear how you arrived at the upper and lower limits for
iTRAQ expression - explain the process of deciding 0.72 - 1.4 as the lower and
upper cut offs for significance. Did you make any effort to assess the labelling
error associated with the iTRAQ labelling process?? ie did you have a parent
control sample labelled with 113 and 114 and compare the ratios??
Minor
1. Figure 2 legends are muddled - the main text suggests Fig 2C is a typical
spectra and 2D is the isoelectric points - not so.
2. Numerous grammatical errors throughout - these need to be addressed and
corrected
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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 interests
assistant