Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:3 June 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this article confirm elevated S100A12 levels in IBD and report a
moderate diagnostic yield for differentiating IBD from IBS. Elevated S100A12
levels in IBD have already been published 2003 in #Gut. The levels reported in
the manuscript by Manolakis et al. are significantly lower than what was reported
before for S100A12 in a number of publications not only regarding IBD but also
other inflammatory diseases. The differences# can be explained by the ELISA
systems used in the different studies. The prototypic ELISA from CISbio used by
Manolakis et al. does not reliably work in serum samples. Meanwhile, CISbio has
stopped the development of an assay system for serum samples. Thus, this
assay was withdrawn from the market.
Major concerns:
1) The authors were probably not aware of the fact that the ELISA they were
using is a prototypic assay that failed validation and is no longer available. They
should at least discuss this.
2) The data obtained are hard to interpret, as the levels of S100A12 are
obviously falsely low and the differences between disease groups are marginal.
The high significance level achieved between IBD and IBS is questionable with
this regard. It is not clear whether nonparametric rank analyses were performed
adequately.
3) For the prototypic assay used, a minimal requirement would be to include
healthy controls and another inflammatory disease control, to be able to compare
with results published before by other groups using independent in-house
ELISAs.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received reimbursement from CISbio, the manufacturer of the ELISA
assay that was used by the authors. I was involved in the development of that
assay.
Otherwise, there are no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:3 June 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this article confirm elevated S100A12 levels in IBD and report a
moderate diagnostic yield for differentiating IBD from IBS. Elevated S100A12
levels in IBD have already been published 2003 in #Gut. The levels reported in
the manuscript by Manolakis et al. are significantly lower than what was reported
before for S100A12 in a number of publications not only regarding IBD but also
other inflammatory diseases. The differences# can be explained by the ELISA
systems used in the different studies. The prototypic ELISA from CISbio used by
Manolakis et al. does not reliably work in serum samples. Meanwhile, CISbio has
stopped the development of an assay system for serum samples. Thus, this
assay was withdrawn from the market.
Major concerns:
1) The authors were probably not aware of the fact that the ELISA they were
using is a prototypic assay that failed validation and is no longer available. They
should at least discuss this.
2) The data obtained are hard to interpret, as the levels of S100A12 are
obviously falsely low and the differences between disease groups are marginal.
The high significance level achieved between IBD and IBS is questionable with
this regard. It is not clear whether nonparametric rank analyses were performed
adequately.
3) For the prototypic assay used, a minimal requirement would be to include
healthy controls and another inflammatory disease control, to be able to compare
with results published before by other groups using independent in-house
ELISAs.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received reimbursement from CISbio, the manufacturer of the ELISA
assay that was used by the authors. I was involved in the development of that
assay.
Otherwise, there are no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:3 June 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this article confirm elevated S100A12 levels in IBD and report a
moderate diagnostic yield for differentiating IBD from IBS. Elevated S100A12
levels in IBD have already been published 2003 in #Gut. The levels reported in
the manuscript by Manolakis et al. are significantly lower than what was reported
before for S100A12 in a number of publications not only regarding IBD but also
other inflammatory diseases. The differences# can be explained by the ELISA
systems used in the different studies. The prototypic ELISA from CISbio used by
Manolakis et al. does not reliably work in serum samples. Meanwhile, CISbio has
stopped the development of an assay system for serum samples. Thus, this
assay was withdrawn from the market.
Major concerns:
1) The authors were probably not aware of the fact that the ELISA they were
using is a prototypic assay that failed validation and is no longer available. They
should at least discuss this.
2) The data obtained are hard to interpret, as the levels of S100A12 are
obviously falsely low and the differences between disease groups are marginal.
The high significance level achieved between IBD and IBS is questionable with
this regard. It is not clear whether nonparametric rank analyses were performed
adequately.
3) For the prototypic assay used, a minimal requirement would be to include
healthy controls and another inflammatory disease control, to be able to compare
with results published before by other groups using independent in-house
ELISAs.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received reimbursement from CISbio, the manufacturer of the ELISA
assay that was used by the authors. I was involved in the development of that
assay.
Otherwise, there are no competing interests.
assistant