Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, MRP2, and CYP3A4 impairs intestinal
absorption of octreotide in rats with portal hypertension
Version: 
2 
Date: 
08 Sep 2019
Reviewer's report:
Most points were adequately addressed, some minor points are remaining:
1) Changing the guideline reference is bad scientific practice. (initially: ARRIVE
Guidelines, first revision: Guidelines to Care and Use of Experimental Animals
by the CCAC; second revision: International Council for Laboratory Animal
Science Guidelines). Please explain or refrain from including these guidelines.
2) Please specify the anesthesia regimen used (dosing, duration etc.). Did the
animals receive postoperative analgesia?
3) How often rats needed "additional dose of anesthetic" Please provide this
information for each group.
4) Please provide a scan of the permit "SCXK2008-0002"
5) "All animal experiments were performed after PH model of rats were
established successfully and there were not any drop-out during anaesthetization
or retrospective experiments. Every each experiment has been finished
successfully. The successful rate of model in our research was about 70%." So
BDL mortality was about 30%. This needs to be highlighted and numbers of
dropouts in the respective groups illustrated. Otherwise reporting remains
intransparent.
6) Supplements are missing. Previously authors provided RT-PCR primers and
full western blot images as supplements. Where is this information now? Please
keep in mind that WB images should be labelled and dated.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, MRP2, and CYP3A4 impairs intestinal
absorption of octreotide in rats with portal hypertension
Version: 
2 
Date: 
08 Sep 2019
Reviewer's report:
Most points were adequately addressed, some minor points are remaining:
1) Changing the guideline reference is bad scientific practice. (initially: ARRIVE
Guidelines, first revision: Guidelines to Care and Use of Experimental Animals
by the CCAC; second revision: International Council for Laboratory Animal
Science Guidelines). Please explain or refrain from including these guidelines.
2) Please specify the anesthesia regimen used (dosing, duration etc.). Did the
animals receive postoperative analgesia?
3) How often rats needed "additional dose of anesthetic" Please provide this
information for each group.
4) Please provide a scan of the permit "SCXK2008-0002"
5) "All animal experiments were performed after PH model of rats were
established successfully and there were not any drop-out during anaesthetization
or retrospective experiments. Every each experiment has been finished
successfully. The successful rate of model in our research was about 70%." So
BDL mortality was about 30%. This needs to be highlighted and numbers of
dropouts in the respective groups illustrated. Otherwise reporting remains
intransparent.
6) Supplements are missing. Previously authors provided RT-PCR primers and
full western blot images as supplements. Where is this information now? Please
keep in mind that WB images should be labelled and dated.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Overexpression of P-glycoprotein, MRP2, and CYP3A4 impairs intestinal
absorption of octreotide in rats with portal hypertension
Version: 
2 
Date: 
08 Sep 2019
Reviewer's report:
Most points were adequately addressed, some minor points are remaining:
1) Changing the guideline reference is bad scientific practice. (initially: ARRIVE
Guidelines, first revision: Guidelines to Care and Use of Experimental Animals
by the CCAC; second revision: International Council for Laboratory Animal
Science Guidelines). Please explain or refrain from including these guidelines.
2) Please specify the anesthesia regimen used (dosing, duration etc.). Did the
animals receive postoperative analgesia?
3) How often rats needed "additional dose of anesthetic" Please provide this
information for each group.
4) Please provide a scan of the permit "SCXK2008-0002"
5) "All animal experiments were performed after PH model of rats were
established successfully and there were not any drop-out during anaesthetization
or retrospective experiments. Every each experiment has been finished
successfully. The successful rate of model in our research was about 70%." So
BDL mortality was about 30%. This needs to be highlighted and numbers of
dropouts in the respective groups illustrated. Otherwise reporting remains
intransparent.
6) Supplements are missing. Previously authors provided RT-PCR primers and
full western blot images as supplements. Where is this information now? Please
keep in mind that WB images should be labelled and dated.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant