Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:10 October 2012
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript described the metabonomics analysis of liver tissue in a
fulminant mouse model of hepatic failure. Metabonomics is a systematic
approach to the study of in vivo metabolic profiles. GC/TOFMS is a new and
robust analytical tool to analyze a large number of endogenous metabolites. The
model is very aggressive and liver necrosis appears within 6 hours after
treatment with D-galactosamine and lipopolysaccharide. The research group has
an abroad experience in this model and the analytical tool used to separate and
identify the liver metabolites.
The paper is clearly written. The methodology used has been clearly indicated
and the statistical analysis has been correctly applied. Results obtained have
been well described; however metabolite abundance was measured by area
under the specific peak at specific time retention. In order to check easily fold
change variation in each parameter, I would suggest display the Table results as
a ratio between acute hepatic failure and control mice.
As the authors indicate in Method Section (at the end of the GC-TOFMS analysis
paragraph) they use commercially available references to identified individual
compounds by their mass spectra and retention times. Thus, authors can provide
concentration of the main compounds instead of the areas. A variation in the
concentration of a given element is much more informative than changes in its
peak area.
Last sentence in Abstract section, the authors said: “ GalN/LPS treatment can
severely disturb substance metabolism in the liver different from that in the
plasma”. However, the authors do not compare the results obtained in in both
compartments. The authors had been previously published metabonomic
analysis of plasma from mice in which the acute liver failure was induced with the
same protocol. In the discussion sections, the authors should compare the
results obtained in the liver (presented in this manuscript), with that previously
reported in the plasma.
- Minor Revisions
Background section, first line, typographical errors : “failure” instead “failue”.
Discussion, second paragraph, second sentence: “To prevent he
influence…mice were sacrificed”. This must be in the Methods Section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:10 October 2012
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript described the metabonomics analysis of liver tissue in a
fulminant mouse model of hepatic failure. Metabonomics is a systematic
approach to the study of in vivo metabolic profiles. GC/TOFMS is a new and
robust analytical tool to analyze a large number of endogenous metabolites. The
model is very aggressive and liver necrosis appears within 6 hours after
treatment with D-galactosamine and lipopolysaccharide. The research group has
an abroad experience in this model and the analytical tool used to separate and
identify the liver metabolites.
The paper is clearly written. The methodology used has been clearly indicated
and the statistical analysis has been correctly applied. Results obtained have
been well described; however metabolite abundance was measured by area
under the specific peak at specific time retention. In order to check easily fold
change variation in each parameter, I would suggest display the Table results as
a ratio between acute hepatic failure and control mice.
As the authors indicate in Method Section (at the end of the GC-TOFMS analysis
paragraph) they use commercially available references to identified individual
compounds by their mass spectra and retention times. Thus, authors can provide
concentration of the main compounds instead of the areas. A variation in the
concentration of a given element is much more informative than changes in its
peak area.
Last sentence in Abstract section, the authors said: “ GalN/LPS treatment can
severely disturb substance metabolism in the liver different from that in the
plasma”. However, the authors do not compare the results obtained in in both
compartments. The authors had been previously published metabonomic
analysis of plasma from mice in which the acute liver failure was induced with the
same protocol. In the discussion sections, the authors should compare the
results obtained in the liver (presented in this manuscript), with that previously
reported in the plasma.
- Minor Revisions
Background section, first line, typographical errors : “failure” instead “failue”.
Discussion, second paragraph, second sentence: “To prevent he
influence…mice were sacrificed”. This must be in the Methods Section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:10 October 2012
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript described the metabonomics analysis of liver tissue in a
fulminant mouse model of hepatic failure. Metabonomics is a systematic
approach to the study of in vivo metabolic profiles. GC/TOFMS is a new and
robust analytical tool to analyze a large number of endogenous metabolites. The
model is very aggressive and liver necrosis appears within 6 hours after
treatment with D-galactosamine and lipopolysaccharide. The research group has
an abroad experience in this model and the analytical tool used to separate and
identify the liver metabolites.
The paper is clearly written. The methodology used has been clearly indicated
and the statistical analysis has been correctly applied. Results obtained have
been well described; however metabolite abundance was measured by area
under the specific peak at specific time retention. In order to check easily fold
change variation in each parameter, I would suggest display the Table results as
a ratio between acute hepatic failure and control mice.
As the authors indicate in Method Section (at the end of the GC-TOFMS analysis
paragraph) they use commercially available references to identified individual
compounds by their mass spectra and retention times. Thus, authors can provide
concentration of the main compounds instead of the areas. A variation in the
concentration of a given element is much more informative than changes in its
peak area.
Last sentence in Abstract section, the authors said: “ GalN/LPS treatment can
severely disturb substance metabolism in the liver different from that in the
plasma”. However, the authors do not compare the results obtained in in both
compartments. The authors had been previously published metabonomic
analysis of plasma from mice in which the acute liver failure was induced with the
same protocol. In the discussion sections, the authors should compare the
results obtained in the liver (presented in this manuscript), with that previously
reported in the plasma.
- Minor Revisions
Background section, first line, typographical errors : “failure” instead “failue”.
Discussion, second paragraph, second sentence: “To prevent he
influence…mice were sacrificed”. This must be in the Methods Section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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