Reviewer's report
Title:The pathogenicity of Staphylococcus epidermidis on the intestinal organs of
rats and mice: an experimental investigation
Version:3Date:13 May 2014
Reviewer: Atte von Wright
Reviewer's report:
2. Minor essential revisions
Despite the response of the authors, I still think that a summary table of the
histopathological results would make the manuscript more readable. If not
tabulating animal by animal, one could try the following approach:
Test group
(n = 7) Histopathological effects (No of affected animals/degree of damage)
Liver Kidney Spleen Intestine Stomach
Control 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/-
A246A x/+ y/+ z/+ v/+ w/+
A480A etc etc etc etc etc
A245A etc etc etc etc etc
The table would show the number of animals with affected organs in each
treatment group and give a qualitative indication of the degree of pathological
changes (- = no effect, + = observable effect, ++ = clear histopatholigical
damage, +++ = severe damage). Just a suggestion.
The authors should use the strain designations also in Figure legends (figures 1
-4) in the description of the treatment groups
Because the tables should be self-explanatory, the size of the treatment groups
should be indicated in Table 3.
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 do not have any compteing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The pathogenicity of Staphylococcus epidermidis on the intestinal organs of
rats and mice: an experimental investigation
Version:3Date:13 May 2014
Reviewer: Atte von Wright
Reviewer's report:
2. Minor essential revisions
Despite the response of the authors, I still think that a summary table of the
histopathological results would make the manuscript more readable. If not
tabulating animal by animal, one could try the following approach:
Test group
(n = 7) Histopathological effects (No of affected animals/degree of damage)
Liver Kidney Spleen Intestine Stomach
Control 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/-
A246A x/+ y/+ z/+ v/+ w/+
A480A etc etc etc etc etc
A245A etc etc etc etc etc
The table would show the number of animals with affected organs in each
treatment group and give a qualitative indication of the degree of pathological
changes (- = no effect, + = observable effect, ++ = clear histopatholigical
damage, +++ = severe damage). Just a suggestion.
The authors should use the strain designations also in Figure legends (figures 1
-4) in the description of the treatment groups
Because the tables should be self-explanatory, the size of the treatment groups
should be indicated in Table 3.
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 do not have any compteing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The pathogenicity of Staphylococcus epidermidis on the intestinal organs of
rats and mice: an experimental investigation
Version:3Date:13 May 2014
Reviewer: Atte von Wright
Reviewer's report:
2. Minor essential revisions
Despite the response of the authors, I still think that a summary table of the
histopathological results would make the manuscript more readable. If not
tabulating animal by animal, one could try the following approach:
Test group
(n = 7) Histopathological effects (No of affected animals/degree of damage)
Liver Kidney Spleen Intestine Stomach
Control 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/-
A246A x/+ y/+ z/+ v/+ w/+
A480A etc etc etc etc etc
A245A etc etc etc etc etc
The table would show the number of animals with affected organs in each
treatment group and give a qualitative indication of the degree of pathological
changes (- = no effect, + = observable effect, ++ = clear histopatholigical
damage, +++ = severe damage). Just a suggestion.
The authors should use the strain designations also in Figure legends (figures 1
-4) in the description of the treatment groups
Because the tables should be self-explanatory, the size of the treatment groups
should be indicated in Table 3.
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 do not have any compteing interests
assistant