Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of Heterozygosity
Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett's Esophagus
Version: 1Date:23 October 2012
Reviewer: kausilia K krishnadath
Reviewer's report:
In the article entitled: ‘Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of
Heterozygosity Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett’s
Esophagus’, the authors attempted to determine clonality of diverse genetic
abnormalities and evaluate the extent of a panel of abnormalities in different
stages of dysplasia.
The work has been performed using tissue micro-dissection and conventional
LOH detection methodology.
The authors formulated a surrogate measure to determine mutational load by
determining high (>75% mutated DNA), low and no mutational load and
combining that with the number of mutations found.
In general, the research seems to be well performed and I only have some minor
comments:
The methods and results section in particularly describing how the ML was
determined is confusing. I would suggest to concisely describing the method
used to determine ML in one separate paragraph headed: Analysis and
determination of Mutational Load
A separate paragraph describing statistics should be included.
In the discussion section the authors need to discuss the short comings of the
use of LOH compared to other techniques for detecting genetic abnormalities.
In the discussion the authors suggest to use this technique to better risk stratify
Barrett’s oesophagus patients. Using LCM in combination with LOH technique in
routine diagnostic laboratories seems quite laborious to me and not many routine
labs are equipped with such technologies. The authors should take this into
consideration and state this fact.
Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of Heterozygosity
Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett's Esophagus
Version: 1Date:23 October 2012
Reviewer: kausilia K krishnadath
Reviewer's report:
In the article entitled: ‘Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of
Heterozygosity Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett’s
Esophagus’, the authors attempted to determine clonality of diverse genetic
abnormalities and evaluate the extent of a panel of abnormalities in different
stages of dysplasia.
The work has been performed using tissue micro-dissection and conventional
LOH detection methodology.
The authors formulated a surrogate measure to determine mutational load by
determining high (>75% mutated DNA), low and no mutational load and
combining that with the number of mutations found.
In general, the research seems to be well performed and I only have some minor
comments:
The methods and results section in particularly describing how the ML was
determined is confusing. I would suggest to concisely describing the method
used to determine ML in one separate paragraph headed: Analysis and
determination of Mutational Load
A separate paragraph describing statistics should be included.
In the discussion section the authors need to discuss the short comings of the
use of LOH compared to other techniques for detecting genetic abnormalities.
In the discussion the authors suggest to use this technique to better risk stratify
Barrett’s oesophagus patients. Using LCM in combination with LOH technique in
routine diagnostic laboratories seems quite laborious to me and not many routine
labs are equipped with such technologies. The authors should take this into
consideration and state this fact.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of Heterozygosity
Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett's Esophagus
Version: 1Date:23 October 2012
Reviewer: kausilia K krishnadath
Reviewer's report:
In the article entitled: ‘Correlation of the Presence and Extent of Loss of
Heterozygosity Mutations with Histological Classifications of Barrett’s
Esophagus’, the authors attempted to determine clonality of diverse genetic
abnormalities and evaluate the extent of a panel of abnormalities in different
stages of dysplasia.
The work has been performed using tissue micro-dissection and conventional
LOH detection methodology.
The authors formulated a surrogate measure to determine mutational load by
determining high (>75% mutated DNA), low and no mutational load and
combining that with the number of mutations found.
In general, the research seems to be well performed and I only have some minor
comments:
The methods and results section in particularly describing how the ML was
determined is confusing. I would suggest to concisely describing the method
used to determine ML in one separate paragraph headed: Analysis and
determination of Mutational Load
A separate paragraph describing statistics should be included.
In the discussion section the authors need to discuss the short comings of the
use of LOH compared to other techniques for detecting genetic abnormalities.
In the discussion the authors suggest to use this technique to better risk stratify
Barrett’s oesophagus patients. Using LCM in combination with LOH technique in
routine diagnostic laboratories seems quite laborious to me and not many routine
labs are equipped with such technologies. The authors should take this into
consideration and state this fact.
assistant