Reviewer's report
Title:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version: 1Date:6 June 2013
Reviewer: Henri Leuvenink
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very well written and is informative. All essential information is
presented in a readable and consistent manner.
I have no major revisions but question if the research question could have been
answered using less animals. The usefulness of the 2 hours and 12 hour time
point is limited although informative.
From a technical point of view the study is performed very well and data are
presented clearly.
Minor:
Figure 4D and 4E: legend on the Y axis is missing. If 4D is the relative density
chance as measured by WB I have some concerns about the standard deviation.
The SD seems rather small. Please describe how this figure was made.
As mentioned by the authors themselves the major limitation of this study is the
IP injection used. It is unclear why this was chosen since the clinical application
is less evident. To overcome this problem, blood levels of hydrogen could have
been measured but this was also not done. Again no argumentation was given.
Finally, the comparison with other anti-oxidative drugs is marginally described.
Especially since the level of protection is significant but not complete.
For some measurements (MDA, mRNA and concentration of IL-6 and TNF)
sham levels are not given. This should be corrected since it is now impossible to
judge the level of injury or level of protection.
I also do not understand why only for HMGB1 a sham level is given. Please
explain.
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:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version: 1Date:6 June 2013
Reviewer: Henri Leuvenink
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very well written and is informative. All essential information is
presented in a readable and consistent manner.
I have no major revisions but question if the research question could have been
answered using less animals. The usefulness of the 2 hours and 12 hour time
point is limited although informative.
From a technical point of view the study is performed very well and data are
presented clearly.
Minor:
Figure 4D and 4E: legend on the Y axis is missing. If 4D is the relative density
chance as measured by WB I have some concerns about the standard deviation.
The SD seems rather small. Please describe how this figure was made.
As mentioned by the authors themselves the major limitation of this study is the
IP injection used. It is unclear why this was chosen since the clinical application
is less evident. To overcome this problem, blood levels of hydrogen could have
been measured but this was also not done. Again no argumentation was given.
Finally, the comparison with other anti-oxidative drugs is marginally described.
Especially since the level of protection is significant but not complete.
For some measurements (MDA, mRNA and concentration of IL-6 and TNF)
sham levels are not given. This should be corrected since it is now impossible to
judge the level of injury or level of protection.
I also do not understand why only for HMGB1 a sham level is given. Please
explain.
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:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version: 1Date:6 June 2013
Reviewer: Henri Leuvenink
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very well written and is informative. All essential information is
presented in a readable and consistent manner.
I have no major revisions but question if the research question could have been
answered using less animals. The usefulness of the 2 hours and 12 hour time
point is limited although informative.
From a technical point of view the study is performed very well and data are
presented clearly.
Minor:
Figure 4D and 4E: legend on the Y axis is missing. If 4D is the relative density
chance as measured by WB I have some concerns about the standard deviation.
The SD seems rather small. Please describe how this figure was made.
As mentioned by the authors themselves the major limitation of this study is the
IP injection used. It is unclear why this was chosen since the clinical application
is less evident. To overcome this problem, blood levels of hydrogen could have
been measured but this was also not done. Again no argumentation was given.
Finally, the comparison with other anti-oxidative drugs is marginally described.
Especially since the level of protection is significant but not complete.
For some measurements (MDA, mRNA and concentration of IL-6 and TNF)
sham levels are not given. This should be corrected since it is now impossible to
judge the level of injury or level of protection.
I also do not understand why only for HMGB1 a sham level is given. Please
explain.
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