Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Approaching treatment for immunological rejection of living -donor liver transplantation in 
rats 
 
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a cle ar objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with suff icient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now reco mmend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors replied to all the reviewers' comments and requests.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
However, some requests have not been fulfilled (i.e, display of isotype control in Fig.4; partial 
clarification on the limitations of the study in th e Conclusion session). Limitation in analysis of 
hepatic metabolic enzymes, such as Cyp2C or Cyp3A1 raised by reviewer #2, has not been 
stated while should be properly addressed in Conclusion session and clearly stated if object of 
ongoing studies.  The au thors agree with reviewer's suggestion to re -arrange Results section. 
However Figures need to be rearrange as well (i.e., lung/kidney histological analysis should be 
moved in a separate Figure or described earlier in the text). Similar comment for figure 3  
(apoptosis is described at page 12 while alphabetaTCR at page 10, but both represented in the 
same Figure). Figure Legends contain large amount of result description. Such sentences should 
be moved in Results, limiting the long text in Legends. Once again , several Figure contains one 
panel only, resulting in large number of figures (8). Several Figures can be rearrange and 
grouped. Several mistypos are still present in the text (i.e. kedney instead of kidney in Figure 2)   
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
A final check of the Discussion section may be appropriate. Attempt in shorten it up is highly 
recommended  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require fu rther 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for compl eting the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any att achments 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 in cluded 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: Approaching treatment for immunological rejection of living -donor liver transplantation in 
rats 
 
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a cle ar objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with suff icient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now reco mmend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors replied to all the reviewers' comments and requests.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
However, some requests have not been fulfilled (i.e, display of isotype control in Fig.4; partial 
clarification on the limitations of the study in th e Conclusion session). Limitation in analysis of 
hepatic metabolic enzymes, such as Cyp2C or Cyp3A1 raised by reviewer #2, has not been 
stated while should be properly addressed in Conclusion session and clearly stated if object of 
ongoing studies.  The au thors agree with reviewer's suggestion to re -arrange Results section. 
However Figures need to be rearrange as well (i.e., lung/kidney histological analysis should be 
moved in a separate Figure or described earlier in the text). Similar comment for figure 3  
(apoptosis is described at page 12 while alphabetaTCR at page 10, but both represented in the 
same Figure). Figure Legends contain large amount of result description. Such sentences should 
be moved in Results, limiting the long text in Legends. Once again , several Figure contains one 
panel only, resulting in large number of figures (8). Several Figures can be rearrange and 
grouped. Several mistypos are still present in the text (i.e. kedney instead of kidney in Figure 2)   
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
A final check of the Discussion section may be appropriate. Attempt in shorten it up is highly 
recommended  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require fu rther 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for compl eting the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any att achments 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 in cluded 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: Approaching treatment for immunological rejection of living -donor liver transplantation in 
rats 
 
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a cle ar objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with suff icient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now reco mmend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors replied to all the reviewers' comments and requests.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
However, some requests have not been fulfilled (i.e, display of isotype control in Fig.4; partial 
clarification on the limitations of the study in th e Conclusion session). Limitation in analysis of 
hepatic metabolic enzymes, such as Cyp2C or Cyp3A1 raised by reviewer #2, has not been 
stated while should be properly addressed in Conclusion session and clearly stated if object of 
ongoing studies.  The au thors agree with reviewer's suggestion to re -arrange Results section. 
However Figures need to be rearrange as well (i.e., lung/kidney histological analysis should be 
moved in a separate Figure or described earlier in the text). Similar comment for figure 3  
(apoptosis is described at page 12 while alphabetaTCR at page 10, but both represented in the 
same Figure). Figure Legends contain large amount of result description. Such sentences should 
be moved in Results, limiting the long text in Legends. Once again , several Figure contains one 
panel only, resulting in large number of figures (8). Several Figures can be rearrange and 
grouped. Several mistypos are still present in the text (i.e. kedney instead of kidney in Figure 2)   
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
A final check of the Discussion section may be appropriate. Attempt in shorten it up is highly 
recommended  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wha t 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require fu rther 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for compl eting the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any att achments 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant