Reviewer's report
Title:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:2Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: ALEXANDER WREE
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Pierce et al. describes the results of a comparative feeding
project focusing on hepatotoxicity and lipotoxicity in mice fed with different MCD
formulas. They compare the effect of custom MCD diets with four different
macronutrient combinations. Results are presented in a clear manner and the
manuscript is well written and easily understandable. I just have some additional
comments.
The MCD model is, despite it’s know drawbacks, used and established to study
the development of NAFLD and NASH. In the manuscript authors use “custom
MCD formulas” (page 2, line 8). How do the custom formulas differ from the
“standard” MCD diet?
One major problem in studying the development of NAFLD and NASH in mice is
the lack of development of insulin resistance when compared to the course of
disease in human. Do any of the custom MCD diets used in this manuscript
overcome this issues?
A major hallmark in the progression of liver disease is the activation and
trans-differentiation of hepatic stellate cells to collagen producing myofibroblast.
This effect has been demonstrated over and over in the “standard” MCD diet. Do
the different “custom MCD formulas” show similar effects?
Minor comments and errata
The list of abbreviation is missing some items, e.g. SCD-1, DNL.
The indication of significant differences using a mix of numbers and asterisks is
not easily understandable.
With the suggested minor, but in my opinion essential changes, the manuscript
by Pierce et al. may be re-submitted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:2Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: ALEXANDER WREE
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Pierce et al. describes the results of a comparative feeding
project focusing on hepatotoxicity and lipotoxicity in mice fed with different MCD
formulas. They compare the effect of custom MCD diets with four different
macronutrient combinations. Results are presented in a clear manner and the
manuscript is well written and easily understandable. I just have some additional
comments.
The MCD model is, despite it’s know drawbacks, used and established to study
the development of NAFLD and NASH. In the manuscript authors use “custom
MCD formulas” (page 2, line 8). How do the custom formulas differ from the
“standard” MCD diet?
One major problem in studying the development of NAFLD and NASH in mice is
the lack of development of insulin resistance when compared to the course of
disease in human. Do any of the custom MCD diets used in this manuscript
overcome this issues?
A major hallmark in the progression of liver disease is the activation and
trans-differentiation of hepatic stellate cells to collagen producing myofibroblast.
This effect has been demonstrated over and over in the “standard” MCD diet. Do
the different “custom MCD formulas” show similar effects?
Minor comments and errata
The list of abbreviation is missing some items, e.g. SCD-1, DNL.
The indication of significant differences using a mix of numbers and asterisks is
not easily understandable.
With the suggested minor, but in my opinion essential changes, the manuscript
by Pierce et al. may be re-submitted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:2Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: ALEXANDER WREE
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Pierce et al. describes the results of a comparative feeding
project focusing on hepatotoxicity and lipotoxicity in mice fed with different MCD
formulas. They compare the effect of custom MCD diets with four different
macronutrient combinations. Results are presented in a clear manner and the
manuscript is well written and easily understandable. I just have some additional
comments.
The MCD model is, despite it’s know drawbacks, used and established to study
the development of NAFLD and NASH. In the manuscript authors use “custom
MCD formulas” (page 2, line 8). How do the custom formulas differ from the
“standard” MCD diet?
One major problem in studying the development of NAFLD and NASH in mice is
the lack of development of insulin resistance when compared to the course of
disease in human. Do any of the custom MCD diets used in this manuscript
overcome this issues?
A major hallmark in the progression of liver disease is the activation and
trans-differentiation of hepatic stellate cells to collagen producing myofibroblast.
This effect has been demonstrated over and over in the “standard” MCD diet. Do
the different “custom MCD formulas” show similar effects?
Minor comments and errata
The list of abbreviation is missing some items, e.g. SCD-1, DNL.
The indication of significant differences using a mix of numbers and asterisks is
not easily understandable.
With the suggested minor, but in my opinion essential changes, the manuscript
by Pierce et al. may be re-submitted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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