Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 1  27 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anna Litynska Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In this article the authors present an analysis of the role of different concentration of phospholipids in 
the reduction of gastric cancer cells adhesion to ECM proteins. This is a topic of interest for cancer 
researchers because adhesion of tumor cells to ECM proteins is an important part of dissemination of malignancy. From their results the authors concluded that phospholipids possess capacity of controlling abdominal nidation of tumor cells to ECM and that the lipid emulsion may be a beneficial 
adjuvant in surgery. This observation is potentially interesting and of great importance however the 
major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. I find this article interesting from medical point of view but very poorly written. There are a lot of mistakes 
in the text. 
-Major Compulsony Revisions 
a) The major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making 
conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. 
b) The part Results is very bad described. The obtained results are present in figures not as table as 
it was mentioned. The results of adhesion should be present as number of cells or percentage of 
cells that adhere to ECM proteins. In fact the table with the values of extinction and SEM should be 
much more informative. 
-Minor Essential Revisions 
Please check the English very carefully 
In many places the word extracellular matrix is used as one word. In Abstract: 
Line 12: “according to dilution 30000-70000 tumor cells were seeded” but in the Methods page5, line 
5: “50000 cells/well “ and finally page 5 line 16: OD showed a linear relationship between 1000 – 
50000” . So which value is correct? Page 2, line 14: “phospholipids were added in concentration 1.0/100ml” – 
Page 2, line22: “phospholipid concentrations of 0.5mg/ ml” or it should be 100 ml? 
Page 3, line 3: the cited references should be 1-4 Page 4, line: what does “cells from three passages “ mean?, may be it was third passage? 
Page 7, line 9: “ amount of PL 0.05mg /100ml led to a reduce extinction of 0.4; it is not true because 
the difference was from 0.58 to 0.4 
Italic for in vitro Please check very carefully the Reference list 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 1  27 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anna Litynska Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In this article the authors present an analysis of the role of different concentration of phospholipids in 
the reduction of gastric cancer cells adhesion to ECM proteins. This is a topic of interest for cancer 
researchers because adhesion of tumor cells to ECM proteins is an important part of dissemination of malignancy. From their results the authors concluded that phospholipids possess capacity of controlling abdominal nidation of tumor cells to ECM and that the lipid emulsion may be a beneficial 
adjuvant in surgery. This observation is potentially interesting and of great importance however the 
major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. I find this article interesting from medical point of view but very poorly written. There are a lot of mistakes 
in the text. 
-Major Compulsony Revisions 
a) The major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making 
conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. 
b) The part Results is very bad described. The obtained results are present in figures not as table as 
it was mentioned. The results of adhesion should be present as number of cells or percentage of 
cells that adhere to ECM proteins. In fact the table with the values of extinction and SEM should be 
much more informative. 
-Minor Essential Revisions 
Please check the English very carefully 
In many places the word extracellular matrix is used as one word. In Abstract: 
Line 12: “according to dilution 30000-70000 tumor cells were seeded” but in the Methods page5, line 
5: “50000 cells/well “ and finally page 5 line 16: OD showed a linear relationship between 1000 – 
50000” . So which value is correct? Page 2, line 14: “phospholipids were added in concentration 1.0/100ml” – 
Page 2, line22: “phospholipid concentrations of 0.5mg/ ml” or it should be 100 ml? 
Page 3, line 3: the cited references should be 1-4 Page 4, line: what does “cells from three passages “ mean?, may be it was third passage? 
Page 7, line 9: “ amount of PL 0.05mg /100ml led to a reduce extinction of 0.4; it is not true because 
the difference was from 0.58 to 0.4 
Italic for in vitro Please check very carefully the Reference list 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 1  27 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anna Litynska Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In this article the authors present an analysis of the role of different concentration of phospholipids in 
the reduction of gastric cancer cells adhesion to ECM proteins. This is a topic of interest for cancer 
researchers because adhesion of tumor cells to ECM proteins is an important part of dissemination of malignancy. From their results the authors concluded that phospholipids possess capacity of controlling abdominal nidation of tumor cells to ECM and that the lipid emulsion may be a beneficial 
adjuvant in surgery. This observation is potentially interesting and of great importance however the 
major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. I find this article interesting from medical point of view but very poorly written. There are a lot of mistakes 
in the text. 
-Major Compulsony Revisions 
a) The major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making 
conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. 
b) The part Results is very bad described. The obtained results are present in figures not as table as 
it was mentioned. The results of adhesion should be present as number of cells or percentage of 
cells that adhere to ECM proteins. In fact the table with the values of extinction and SEM should be 
much more informative. 
-Minor Essential Revisions 
Please check the English very carefully 
In many places the word extracellular matrix is used as one word. In Abstract: 
Line 12: “according to dilution 30000-70000 tumor cells were seeded” but in the Methods page5, line 
5: “50000 cells/well “ and finally page 5 line 16: OD showed a linear relationship between 1000 – 
50000” . So which value is correct? Page 2, line 14: “phospholipids were added in concentration 1.0/100ml” – 
Page 2, line22: “phospholipid concentrations of 0.5mg/ ml” or it should be 100 ml? 
Page 3, line 3: the cited references should be 1-4 Page 4, line: what does “cells from three passages “ mean?, may be it was third passage? 
Page 7, line 9: “ amount of PL 0.05mg /100ml led to a reduce extinction of 0.4; it is not true because 
the difference was from 0.58 to 0.4 
Italic for in vitro Please check very carefully the Reference list 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant