Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Relevance of FXR -p62/SQSTM1 pathway for survival and protection of mouse 
hepatocytes and liver, especially with steatosis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Pamela Tuma  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In th is reviewer's opinion, many of the observations in protein expression levels, cell survival 
and hepatoprotection remain modest or not overly convincing.  However, the authors have 
greatly improved the quality of their western blot data, provided much bette r loading controls, 
stated clearly the number of independent experiments analyzed and proved updated p -values.  
Although modest, the results are indeed consistent - albeit the physiological relevance can be 
argued.  
They have also added experimental details to their Methods Section and to the Figure Legends 
clearing up confusion from the first review.  
Also as requested, they have toned down their conclusions both in the Results and Discussion 
sections.  They have bee n more careful about not overstating their claims and have also 
addressed the limitations of the model systems used.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, pl ease specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscr ipt or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stock s or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing  interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Relevance of FXR -p62/SQSTM1 pathway for survival and protection of mouse 
hepatocytes and liver, especially with steatosis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Pamela Tuma  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In th is reviewer's opinion, many of the observations in protein expression levels, cell survival 
and hepatoprotection remain modest or not overly convincing.  However, the authors have 
greatly improved the quality of their western blot data, provided much bette r loading controls, 
stated clearly the number of independent experiments analyzed and proved updated p -values.  
Although modest, the results are indeed consistent - albeit the physiological relevance can be 
argued.  
They have also added experimental details to their Methods Section and to the Figure Legends 
clearing up confusion from the first review.  
Also as requested, they have toned down their conclusions both in the Results and Discussion 
sections.  They have bee n more careful about not overstating their claims and have also 
addressed the limitations of the model systems used.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, pl ease specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscr ipt or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stock s or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing  interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Relevance of FXR -p62/SQSTM1 pathway for survival and protection of mouse 
hepatocytes and liver, especially with steatosis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Pamela Tuma  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In th is reviewer's opinion, many of the observations in protein expression levels, cell survival 
and hepatoprotection remain modest or not overly convincing.  However, the authors have 
greatly improved the quality of their western blot data, provided much bette r loading controls, 
stated clearly the number of independent experiments analyzed and proved updated p -values.  
Although modest, the results are indeed consistent - albeit the physiological relevance can be 
argued.  
They have also added experimental details to their Methods Section and to the Figure Legends 
clearing up confusion from the first review.  
Also as requested, they have toned down their conclusions both in the Results and Discussion 
sections.  They have bee n more careful about not overstating their claims and have also 
addressed the limitations of the model systems used.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, pl ease specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscr ipt or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stock s or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing  interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open  peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the a uthors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be inc luded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant