Reviewer's report
Title:TNF-alpha-induced up-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines is reduced
by phosphatidylcholine in intestinal epithelial cells
Version: 4Date:9 March 2009
Reviewer: Alexandr Parlesak
Reviewer's report:
Regarding previous objections on their manuscript on the mechanism leading to
down-regulation of TNF-#-induced inflammation in Caco-2 cells by
phosphatidylcholine (PC), the authors have improved the txt considerably. I have
only a few minor essential revisions to suggest:
Minor essential revisions
1) The Abstract seems quite long to me – no limits from the editorial office?
2) In the Results part of the Abstract: Replace ‘monocyte chemoattractant
proteins’ by ‘monocyte chemoattractant protein’; besides that, it should either be
stated that SN 50 is a NFkB inhibitor or ‘SN 50’ should be omitted in the Abstract.
3) The last sentence in the Conlusion part of the Abstract is misleading; it can be
read also as TNF-# would trigger signaling from both the apical and the
basolateral side, which is evidently not true.
4) In the Background and the Discussion, the expression ‘in this respect’ is used.
I suggest to replace it with ‘with respect to this’.
5) In the Methods, part ‘Lipids and reagents, it should be stated that SN 50 is a
NFkB inhibitor – the sense of the experiment is hard to understand if this
information is not given.
6) In the Methods, locations for RnD systems, RAS, and Startagene should be
given as well. Provide used concentration of cells in the Flow cytometry section
and reveal the source of radiolabelled PC. What is a’postnuclear supernatant?
7) In the Results section, part ‘Expression of pro-inflammatory …’, the authors
state in the first paragraph that TNF-#-mRNA expression was not enhanced by
TNF-# treatment. In the second paragraph, they state the opposite – clear this
contradiction.
8) For Figure 7, a higher resolution should be provided.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:TNF-alpha-induced up-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines is reduced
by phosphatidylcholine in intestinal epithelial cells
Version: 4Date:9 March 2009
Reviewer: Alexandr Parlesak
Reviewer's report:
Regarding previous objections on their manuscript on the mechanism leading to
down-regulation of TNF-#-induced inflammation in Caco-2 cells by
phosphatidylcholine (PC), the authors have improved the txt considerably. I have
only a few minor essential revisions to suggest:
Minor essential revisions
1) The Abstract seems quite long to me – no limits from the editorial office?
2) In the Results part of the Abstract: Replace ‘monocyte chemoattractant
proteins’ by ‘monocyte chemoattractant protein’; besides that, it should either be
stated that SN 50 is a NFkB inhibitor or ‘SN 50’ should be omitted in the Abstract.
3) The last sentence in the Conlusion part of the Abstract is misleading; it can be
read also as TNF-# would trigger signaling from both the apical and the
basolateral side, which is evidently not true.
4) In the Background and the Discussion, the expression ‘in this respect’ is used.
I suggest to replace it with ‘with respect to this’.
5) In the Methods, part ‘Lipids and reagents, it should be stated that SN 50 is a
NFkB inhibitor – the sense of the experiment is hard to understand if this
information is not given.
6) In the Methods, locations for RnD systems, RAS, and Startagene should be
given as well. Provide used concentration of cells in the Flow cytometry section
and reveal the source of radiolabelled PC. What is a’postnuclear supernatant?
7) In the Results section, part ‘Expression of pro-inflammatory …’, the authors
state in the first paragraph that TNF-#-mRNA expression was not enhanced by
TNF-# treatment. In the second paragraph, they state the opposite – clear this
contradiction.
8) For Figure 7, a higher resolution should be provided.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:TNF-alpha-induced up-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines is reduced
by phosphatidylcholine in intestinal epithelial cells
Version: 4Date:9 March 2009
Reviewer: Alexandr Parlesak
Reviewer's report:
Regarding previous objections on their manuscript on the mechanism leading to
down-regulation of TNF-#-induced inflammation in Caco-2 cells by
phosphatidylcholine (PC), the authors have improved the txt considerably. I have
only a few minor essential revisions to suggest:
Minor essential revisions
1) The Abstract seems quite long to me – no limits from the editorial office?
2) In the Results part of the Abstract: Replace ‘monocyte chemoattractant
proteins’ by ‘monocyte chemoattractant protein’; besides that, it should either be
stated that SN 50 is a NFkB inhibitor or ‘SN 50’ should be omitted in the Abstract.
3) The last sentence in the Conlusion part of the Abstract is misleading; it can be
read also as TNF-# would trigger signaling from both the apical and the
basolateral side, which is evidently not true.
4) In the Background and the Discussion, the expression ‘in this respect’ is used.
I suggest to replace it with ‘with respect to this’.
5) In the Methods, part ‘Lipids and reagents, it should be stated that SN 50 is a
NFkB inhibitor – the sense of the experiment is hard to understand if this
information is not given.
6) In the Methods, locations for RnD systems, RAS, and Startagene should be
given as well. Provide used concentration of cells in the Flow cytometry section
and reveal the source of radiolabelled PC. What is a’postnuclear supernatant?
7) In the Results section, part ‘Expression of pro-inflammatory …’, the authors
state in the first paragraph that TNF-#-mRNA expression was not enhanced by
TNF-# treatment. In the second paragraph, they state the opposite – clear this
contradiction.
8) For Figure 7, a higher resolution should be provided.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant