Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 2  22 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kenneth D Chavin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. Overall, this is an interesting study representing an important subject of study. The results 
presented are straightforward and novel, however, the discussion and conclusions could be expanded to include a more detailed analysis of the results and their clinical relevance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
We believe the following should be addressed: 
2. Extensive introduction was dedicated to the discussion of the NOS isoforms, especially NOS-III 
and its regulation by leptin as well as its ability to affect NO formation. In addition, it is stated in the 
manuscript's conclusion that "this study showed that the stimulatory effect of leptin on NOS-III 
significantly decreased under NOS-III inhibition by L-NAME". These statements may indeed be 
correct, however, NOS-III expression was not measured. 
3. In the conclusion it is stated that "leptin can be used safely in intestinal surgery, since it induces 
vasodialation of mesenteric vessels", but the ability of leptin to induce vasodialation of vessels was not measured in the animal/surgical model used in this study. 
4. Perhaps the discussion and conclusion should be focused more on the direct results found in this 
study. Also, a discussion of the heterogeneity of leptin expression and receptor function in the 
general population in relation to diabetes, obesity, etc. and the possible consequences of this on 
small intestine ischemia-reperfusion injury would be very interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
5. In the third paragraph of the discussion, it is mentioned that "NO synthesis is inhibited 
by...L-NAME", however, in the next sentence it is said that "...tissue NO level significantly increased 
in the L-NAME-administered group". This is confusing and may be an error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
6. Representative H&E photomicrographs would be a helpful addition as a figure in this manuscript. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 2  22 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kenneth D Chavin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. Overall, this is an interesting study representing an important subject of study. The results 
presented are straightforward and novel, however, the discussion and conclusions could be expanded to include a more detailed analysis of the results and their clinical relevance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
We believe the following should be addressed: 
2. Extensive introduction was dedicated to the discussion of the NOS isoforms, especially NOS-III 
and its regulation by leptin as well as its ability to affect NO formation. In addition, it is stated in the 
manuscript's conclusion that "this study showed that the stimulatory effect of leptin on NOS-III 
significantly decreased under NOS-III inhibition by L-NAME". These statements may indeed be 
correct, however, NOS-III expression was not measured. 
3. In the conclusion it is stated that "leptin can be used safely in intestinal surgery, since it induces 
vasodialation of mesenteric vessels", but the ability of leptin to induce vasodialation of vessels was not measured in the animal/surgical model used in this study. 
4. Perhaps the discussion and conclusion should be focused more on the direct results found in this 
study. Also, a discussion of the heterogeneity of leptin expression and receptor function in the 
general population in relation to diabetes, obesity, etc. and the possible consequences of this on 
small intestine ischemia-reperfusion injury would be very interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
5. In the third paragraph of the discussion, it is mentioned that "NO synthesis is inhibited 
by...L-NAME", however, in the next sentence it is said that "...tissue NO level significantly increased 
in the L-NAME-administered group". This is confusing and may be an error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
6. Representative H&E photomicrographs would be a helpful addition as a figure in this manuscript. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 2  22 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kenneth D Chavin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. Overall, this is an interesting study representing an important subject of study. The results 
presented are straightforward and novel, however, the discussion and conclusions could be expanded to include a more detailed analysis of the results and their clinical relevance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
We believe the following should be addressed: 
2. Extensive introduction was dedicated to the discussion of the NOS isoforms, especially NOS-III 
and its regulation by leptin as well as its ability to affect NO formation. In addition, it is stated in the 
manuscript's conclusion that "this study showed that the stimulatory effect of leptin on NOS-III 
significantly decreased under NOS-III inhibition by L-NAME". These statements may indeed be 
correct, however, NOS-III expression was not measured. 
3. In the conclusion it is stated that "leptin can be used safely in intestinal surgery, since it induces 
vasodialation of mesenteric vessels", but the ability of leptin to induce vasodialation of vessels was not measured in the animal/surgical model used in this study. 
4. Perhaps the discussion and conclusion should be focused more on the direct results found in this 
study. Also, a discussion of the heterogeneity of leptin expression and receptor function in the 
general population in relation to diabetes, obesity, etc. and the possible consequences of this on 
small intestine ischemia-reperfusion injury would be very interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
5. In the third paragraph of the discussion, it is mentioned that "NO synthesis is inhibited 
by...L-NAME", however, in the next sentence it is said that "...tissue NO level significantly increased 
in the L-NAME-administered group". This is confusing and may be an error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
6. Representative H&E photomicrographs would be a helpful addition as a figure in this manuscript. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant