Reviewer's report
Title:Apolipoprotein E COG 133 mimetic peptide improves
5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis
Version: 9Date:6 January 2012
Reviewer: Wei Han
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1#Method of how to assess the “mitotic index” is not well described, maybe not
easy to understand.
- Minor Essential Revisions
There are some minor mistakes in the manuscript, which the author should
correct. Such as:
1) Methods, Cell proliferation assays, WST assay, “104 cells /ml in 100 µl of
standard DMEM media” is the correct writing;
2) Please make sure the formats of the entire manuscript are consistency. The
tittles of FIGURE 6 A and B will be better if both are bold or not; The figures
should be showed with uniform format; The abbreviation of hour should be
uniform. And so on.
- Discretionary Revisions
1) The difference of the NF-#B Immunohistochemistry within each group is not
obvious. Maybe because of the imperfect biopsy. I think Western blot is a better
choice.
I advise that the manuscript will be accepted after major compulsory revisions
and minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Apolipoprotein E COG 133 mimetic peptide improves
5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis
Version: 9Date:6 January 2012
Reviewer: Wei Han
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1#Method of how to assess the “mitotic index” is not well described, maybe not
easy to understand.
- Minor Essential Revisions
There are some minor mistakes in the manuscript, which the author should
correct. Such as:
1) Methods, Cell proliferation assays, WST assay, “104 cells /ml in 100 µl of
standard DMEM media” is the correct writing;
2) Please make sure the formats of the entire manuscript are consistency. The
tittles of FIGURE 6 A and B will be better if both are bold or not; The figures
should be showed with uniform format; The abbreviation of hour should be
uniform. And so on.
- Discretionary Revisions
1) The difference of the NF-#B Immunohistochemistry within each group is not
obvious. Maybe because of the imperfect biopsy. I think Western blot is a better
choice.
I advise that the manuscript will be accepted after major compulsory revisions
and minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Apolipoprotein E COG 133 mimetic peptide improves
5-fluorouracil-induced intestinal mucositis
Version: 9Date:6 January 2012
Reviewer: Wei Han
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1#Method of how to assess the “mitotic index” is not well described, maybe not
easy to understand.
- Minor Essential Revisions
There are some minor mistakes in the manuscript, which the author should
correct. Such as:
1) Methods, Cell proliferation assays, WST assay, “104 cells /ml in 100 µl of
standard DMEM media” is the correct writing;
2) Please make sure the formats of the entire manuscript are consistency. The
tittles of FIGURE 6 A and B will be better if both are bold or not; The figures
should be showed with uniform format; The abbreviation of hour should be
uniform. And so on.
- Discretionary Revisions
1) The difference of the NF-#B Immunohistochemistry within each group is not
obvious. Maybe because of the imperfect biopsy. I think Western blot is a better
choice.
I advise that the manuscript will be accepted after major compulsory revisions
and minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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