Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 3Date:4 July 2008
Reviewer: Hans-Jürg Monstein
Reviewer's report:
The study conducted by Zhang Z et al is welll performed, appropriate methods
have been used and the conclusions drawn are well supported by the
experiments carried out. I have some more general points to be commented:
The authors have used PCR amplification assays targeting several genes
considered to be important in disease outcome (Table 1 and 4). I am surprised to
see that the vaca-i (intermediate) region was not included in the study. According
to a recent study, the vacA-i-region is an important factor of vacA-associated
pathogenicity (Rhread JL et al., Gastroenterology 2007;133:926-936).
As pointed out by the authors, there results are not in good agreement with the
study of Argent et al. Has the way of performing the analysis such as using
different primers and DNA isolated from cultured bacteria rather than DNA
isolated from biopsy specimens any general impact on the result outcome? Have
the authors carried out any in biopsy studies and compared the results (Scanning
the PubMed database offers several publications showing that H. pylori genes
can be analysed omitting culture procedures)?
Since all the primersequences are listed in table 4 they can be omitted in the
Materials section para DNA extraction and PCR amplification.
The reference list is not formated according to the requirement of BMC
Gastroenterology
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 3Date:4 July 2008
Reviewer: Hans-Jürg Monstein
Reviewer's report:
The study conducted by Zhang Z et al is welll performed, appropriate methods
have been used and the conclusions drawn are well supported by the
experiments carried out. I have some more general points to be commented:
The authors have used PCR amplification assays targeting several genes
considered to be important in disease outcome (Table 1 and 4). I am surprised to
see that the vaca-i (intermediate) region was not included in the study. According
to a recent study, the vacA-i-region is an important factor of vacA-associated
pathogenicity (Rhread JL et al., Gastroenterology 2007;133:926-936).
As pointed out by the authors, there results are not in good agreement with the
study of Argent et al. Has the way of performing the analysis such as using
different primers and DNA isolated from cultured bacteria rather than DNA
isolated from biopsy specimens any general impact on the result outcome? Have
the authors carried out any in biopsy studies and compared the results (Scanning
the PubMed database offers several publications showing that H. pylori genes
can be analysed omitting culture procedures)?
Since all the primersequences are listed in table 4 they can be omitted in the
Materials section para DNA extraction and PCR amplification.
The reference list is not formated according to the requirement of BMC
Gastroenterology
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 3Date:4 July 2008
Reviewer: Hans-Jürg Monstein
Reviewer's report:
The study conducted by Zhang Z et al is welll performed, appropriate methods
have been used and the conclusions drawn are well supported by the
experiments carried out. I have some more general points to be commented:
The authors have used PCR amplification assays targeting several genes
considered to be important in disease outcome (Table 1 and 4). I am surprised to
see that the vaca-i (intermediate) region was not included in the study. According
to a recent study, the vacA-i-region is an important factor of vacA-associated
pathogenicity (Rhread JL et al., Gastroenterology 2007;133:926-936).
As pointed out by the authors, there results are not in good agreement with the
study of Argent et al. Has the way of performing the analysis such as using
different primers and DNA isolated from cultured bacteria rather than DNA
isolated from biopsy specimens any general impact on the result outcome? Have
the authors carried out any in biopsy studies and compared the results (Scanning
the PubMed database offers several publications showing that H. pylori genes
can be analysed omitting culture procedures)?
Since all the primersequences are listed in table 4 they can be omitted in the
Materials section para DNA extraction and PCR amplification.
The reference list is not formated according to the requirement of BMC
Gastroenterology
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.
assistant