Reviewer's report
Title:Altered expression of a putative progenitor cell marker DCAMKL1 in the rat
gastric mucosa in regeneration, metaplasia and dysplasia
Version: 2Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Jonathan Kaunitz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a manuscript addressing the localization of the
putative stem cell marker DCAMKL1 in normal rat stomach and in a variety of
gastric injury models. The authors have responded positively to the critiques by
generating new data and providing helpful schematic drawings explaining their
data.
I have a few additional comments:
Ut appears that Figs. 5-6 both depict the 3 week time point and have overlapping
data. Suggest merging the figures and reducing the 17 images shown to a
smaller number, avoiding duplication, and increasing clarity.
Why is the healing ulcer at the 2 week time point and the active ulcer at the 3
week point?
In Fig. 9, consider placing the serial sections in a single column.
Use "whereas' instead of "while" if you are meaning "while in contrast" or
suchlike. For example, on the top of p. 18, it appears that your findings are
different from those reported in ref. 13.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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 have met some of the co-authors at professional meetings. Otherwise, 'I declare
that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Altered expression of a putative progenitor cell marker DCAMKL1 in the rat
gastric mucosa in regeneration, metaplasia and dysplasia
Version: 2Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Jonathan Kaunitz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a manuscript addressing the localization of the
putative stem cell marker DCAMKL1 in normal rat stomach and in a variety of
gastric injury models. The authors have responded positively to the critiques by
generating new data and providing helpful schematic drawings explaining their
data.
I have a few additional comments:
Ut appears that Figs. 5-6 both depict the 3 week time point and have overlapping
data. Suggest merging the figures and reducing the 17 images shown to a
smaller number, avoiding duplication, and increasing clarity.
Why is the healing ulcer at the 2 week time point and the active ulcer at the 3
week point?
In Fig. 9, consider placing the serial sections in a single column.
Use "whereas' instead of "while" if you are meaning "while in contrast" or
suchlike. For example, on the top of p. 18, it appears that your findings are
different from those reported in ref. 13.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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 have met some of the co-authors at professional meetings. Otherwise, 'I declare
that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Altered expression of a putative progenitor cell marker DCAMKL1 in the rat
gastric mucosa in regeneration, metaplasia and dysplasia
Version: 2Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Jonathan Kaunitz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a manuscript addressing the localization of the
putative stem cell marker DCAMKL1 in normal rat stomach and in a variety of
gastric injury models. The authors have responded positively to the critiques by
generating new data and providing helpful schematic drawings explaining their
data.
I have a few additional comments:
Ut appears that Figs. 5-6 both depict the 3 week time point and have overlapping
data. Suggest merging the figures and reducing the 17 images shown to a
smaller number, avoiding duplication, and increasing clarity.
Why is the healing ulcer at the 2 week time point and the active ulcer at the 3
week point?
In Fig. 9, consider placing the serial sections in a single column.
Use "whereas' instead of "while" if you are meaning "while in contrast" or
suchlike. For example, on the top of p. 18, it appears that your findings are
different from those reported in ref. 13.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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 have met some of the co-authors at professional meetings. Otherwise, 'I declare
that I have no competing interests'
assistant