Reviewer's report
Title:Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of IL-1beta and genotypes of
Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and gastric ulcer
Version: 1Date:1 June 2010
Reviewer: Rafael Barreto-Zuñiga
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
I send to you the review (in English and Spanish) of the manuscript by Martinez
N, Garza E, Reyes-Betancourt et al. 'Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of
IL-1beta and genotypes of Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer'
The manuscript by Martínez N, et al. examines the association of the IL-1B -511
T>C and -31 C>T polymorphisms with the presence of chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer and to analyze the association of the H. pylori vacA genotypes with
the development of gastric ulcer.
Minor comments: The methodology its OK, only we have some doubts related to
biopsy taken: which one was taken for pathology study and which one for to
make the presence of Helicobacter pylori and the genotypes of vaCA gen,
Therefore, on depend of the studied anatomical site could be more variability on
vaCA genotypes , such as they did found (15%). Another hand, why the authors,
they did not determination of IgG, IgM antibody, anti-Helicobacter pylori in the
study group and to make the comparison between the seroprevalence of the
three groups. Perhaps, probably did not statistical difference between controls
and the chronic gastritis group. Another part, I believe only did take in point the
results of the determination of IgG and they did not take in focus the IgM.
On the results section, paragraph 2 (H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes), first
line. The authors mention that the control group, the Helicobacter pylori
determination it’s by serology and the case-group it’s by PCR, we believe the
both determination (sensitivity) its different, such the PCR its similar to the
culture.
On the part of results, paragraph two (H.pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line number five, The authors mention that: One of the strains did not amplify for
the typed m subtypes. They did not made it culture and of then, they did not are
strains, will be the focused that did not was possible made typing the vac A gen
from positive biopsy for PCR from Helicobacter pylori.
On the Results section, paragraph 2 ( H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line 7. The authors mention that: The vacAs1 subtypes was detected in 97 of the
116 strains, they had positive biopsy on the Helicobacter pylori presence
(positive) by PCR and then from the beginning, they mention that” from 128
gastric biopsies only were positive 101 Helicobacter pylori biopsies. The total it’s
different. Where did they taken 116 biopsies?. To taken in consideration, they did
call “strains” to the positive biopsies for PCR.
On the table 1, the column 4 (Amplification program) its not informative, I believe
such table need to be eliminate.
For the last, with respect to the allele and haplotype , they found such data from
their groups of patients and they are data from their population and we don’t
make final conclusions form all Mexican population.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of IL-1beta and genotypes of
Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and gastric ulcer
Version: 1Date:1 June 2010
Reviewer: Rafael Barreto-Zuñiga
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
I send to you the review (in English and Spanish) of the manuscript by Martinez
N, Garza E, Reyes-Betancourt et al. 'Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of
IL-1beta and genotypes of Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer'
The manuscript by Martínez N, et al. examines the association of the IL-1B -511
T>C and -31 C>T polymorphisms with the presence of chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer and to analyze the association of the H. pylori vacA genotypes with
the development of gastric ulcer.
Minor comments: The methodology its OK, only we have some doubts related to
biopsy taken: which one was taken for pathology study and which one for to
make the presence of Helicobacter pylori and the genotypes of vaCA gen,
Therefore, on depend of the studied anatomical site could be more variability on
vaCA genotypes , such as they did found (15%). Another hand, why the authors,
they did not determination of IgG, IgM antibody, anti-Helicobacter pylori in the
study group and to make the comparison between the seroprevalence of the
three groups. Perhaps, probably did not statistical difference between controls
and the chronic gastritis group. Another part, I believe only did take in point the
results of the determination of IgG and they did not take in focus the IgM.
On the results section, paragraph 2 (H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes), first
line. The authors mention that the control group, the Helicobacter pylori
determination it’s by serology and the case-group it’s by PCR, we believe the
both determination (sensitivity) its different, such the PCR its similar to the
culture.
On the part of results, paragraph two (H.pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line number five, The authors mention that: One of the strains did not amplify for
the typed m subtypes. They did not made it culture and of then, they did not are
strains, will be the focused that did not was possible made typing the vac A gen
from positive biopsy for PCR from Helicobacter pylori.
On the Results section, paragraph 2 ( H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line 7. The authors mention that: The vacAs1 subtypes was detected in 97 of the
116 strains, they had positive biopsy on the Helicobacter pylori presence
(positive) by PCR and then from the beginning, they mention that” from 128
gastric biopsies only were positive 101 Helicobacter pylori biopsies. The total it’s
different. Where did they taken 116 biopsies?. To taken in consideration, they did
call “strains” to the positive biopsies for PCR.
On the table 1, the column 4 (Amplification program) its not informative, I believe
such table need to be eliminate.
For the last, with respect to the allele and haplotype , they found such data from
their groups of patients and they are data from their population and we don’t
make final conclusions form all Mexican population.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of IL-1beta and genotypes of
Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and gastric ulcer
Version: 1Date:1 June 2010
Reviewer: Rafael Barreto-Zuñiga
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
I send to you the review (in English and Spanish) of the manuscript by Martinez
N, Garza E, Reyes-Betancourt et al. 'Association of the -511C/-31T haplotype of
IL-1beta and genotypes of Helicobacter pylori-vacA with chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer'
The manuscript by Martínez N, et al. examines the association of the IL-1B -511
T>C and -31 C>T polymorphisms with the presence of chronic gastritis and
gastric ulcer and to analyze the association of the H. pylori vacA genotypes with
the development of gastric ulcer.
Minor comments: The methodology its OK, only we have some doubts related to
biopsy taken: which one was taken for pathology study and which one for to
make the presence of Helicobacter pylori and the genotypes of vaCA gen,
Therefore, on depend of the studied anatomical site could be more variability on
vaCA genotypes , such as they did found (15%). Another hand, why the authors,
they did not determination of IgG, IgM antibody, anti-Helicobacter pylori in the
study group and to make the comparison between the seroprevalence of the
three groups. Perhaps, probably did not statistical difference between controls
and the chronic gastritis group. Another part, I believe only did take in point the
results of the determination of IgG and they did not take in focus the IgM.
On the results section, paragraph 2 (H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes), first
line. The authors mention that the control group, the Helicobacter pylori
determination it’s by serology and the case-group it’s by PCR, we believe the
both determination (sensitivity) its different, such the PCR its similar to the
culture.
On the part of results, paragraph two (H.pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line number five, The authors mention that: One of the strains did not amplify for
the typed m subtypes. They did not made it culture and of then, they did not are
strains, will be the focused that did not was possible made typing the vac A gen
from positive biopsy for PCR from Helicobacter pylori.
On the Results section, paragraph 2 ( H. pylori infection and vacA genotypes),
line 7. The authors mention that: The vacAs1 subtypes was detected in 97 of the
116 strains, they had positive biopsy on the Helicobacter pylori presence
(positive) by PCR and then from the beginning, they mention that” from 128
gastric biopsies only were positive 101 Helicobacter pylori biopsies. The total it’s
different. Where did they taken 116 biopsies?. To taken in consideration, they did
call “strains” to the positive biopsies for PCR.
On the table 1, the column 4 (Amplification program) its not informative, I believe
such table need to be eliminate.
For the last, with respect to the allele and haplotype , they found such data from
their groups of patients and they are data from their population and we don’t
make final conclusions form all Mexican population.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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