Reviewer's report 
 Energy metabolism in pathological human liver Title: 
 2  24 December 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jerry Glickson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
REFEREES REPORT 
Evaluation 
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? Yes 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient 
details provided to replicate the work? Yes 3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and 
data deposition? Yes 
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes 
7. Is the writing acceptable? Yes 
Compulsory Revision Required No 
GENERAL CRITIQUE:. This is an exceptionally well written manuscript. The data are well presented 
and analyzed. The manuscript resolves an unsolved question in the literature and implies that the detection of CK activity in the liver or detection of PCr in 31P MRS spectra of the liver may serve as 
a index for tumor detection in that organ. In this regard it might be noteworthy that more sensitive 
methods for imaging PCr in biological tissues have recently been introduced by Greenman and Lenkinski (JMRI 15(4):467-72, 2002, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 39(5):851-4, 1998). This might facilitate detection of sites of PCr production (i.e., tumors) in the liver. 
The only minor fault is an attempt to rationalize the results in terms of P53 mutations. The fact that 
P53 leads to suppression of BB-CK and enhanced expression of MM-CK, does not lead to the conclusion that mutation or inactivation of this gene will produce the reverse effect. 
Recommendation 
Publication is enthusiastically recommended. These data have not been published previously as far as this reviewer is aware. Deletion of the speculative comment is recommended but not required. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Deletion of the speculative comment (on P53) is recommended but not required. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Energy metabolism in pathological human liver Title: 
 2  24 December 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jerry Glickson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
REFEREES REPORT 
Evaluation 
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? Yes 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient 
details provided to replicate the work? Yes 3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and 
data deposition? Yes 
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes 
7. Is the writing acceptable? Yes 
Compulsory Revision Required No 
GENERAL CRITIQUE:. This is an exceptionally well written manuscript. The data are well presented 
and analyzed. The manuscript resolves an unsolved question in the literature and implies that the detection of CK activity in the liver or detection of PCr in 31P MRS spectra of the liver may serve as 
a index for tumor detection in that organ. In this regard it might be noteworthy that more sensitive 
methods for imaging PCr in biological tissues have recently been introduced by Greenman and Lenkinski (JMRI 15(4):467-72, 2002, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 39(5):851-4, 1998). This might facilitate detection of sites of PCr production (i.e., tumors) in the liver. 
The only minor fault is an attempt to rationalize the results in terms of P53 mutations. The fact that 
P53 leads to suppression of BB-CK and enhanced expression of MM-CK, does not lead to the conclusion that mutation or inactivation of this gene will produce the reverse effect. 
Recommendation 
Publication is enthusiastically recommended. These data have not been published previously as far as this reviewer is aware. Deletion of the speculative comment is recommended but not required. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Deletion of the speculative comment (on P53) is recommended but not required. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable 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 
 Energy metabolism in pathological human liver Title: 
 2  24 December 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jerry Glickson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
REFEREES REPORT 
Evaluation 
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? Yes 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient 
details provided to replicate the work? Yes 3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and 
data deposition? Yes 
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes 
7. Is the writing acceptable? Yes 
Compulsory Revision Required No 
GENERAL CRITIQUE:. This is an exceptionally well written manuscript. The data are well presented 
and analyzed. The manuscript resolves an unsolved question in the literature and implies that the detection of CK activity in the liver or detection of PCr in 31P MRS spectra of the liver may serve as 
a index for tumor detection in that organ. In this regard it might be noteworthy that more sensitive 
methods for imaging PCr in biological tissues have recently been introduced by Greenman and Lenkinski (JMRI 15(4):467-72, 2002, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 39(5):851-4, 1998). This might facilitate detection of sites of PCr production (i.e., tumors) in the liver. 
The only minor fault is an attempt to rationalize the results in terms of P53 mutations. The fact that 
P53 leads to suppression of BB-CK and enhanced expression of MM-CK, does not lead to the conclusion that mutation or inactivation of this gene will produce the reverse effect. 
Recommendation 
Publication is enthusiastically recommended. These data have not been published previously as far as this reviewer is aware. Deletion of the speculative comment is recommended but not required. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Deletion of the speculative comment (on P53) is recommended but not required. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant