Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 2  16 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Joost P Drenth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The authors have addressed the majority of the issues. I have still one single issue. 
The authors point out that they selected 99 unrelated ethnically matched controls that were subjected to 
computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. They way the authors have put it does not discern between 2 possibilities that led to the selection of the 
control subjects. 
(1) The control subjects were specifically selected for this study 
(2) The controls had complaints reminiscent of TCP and underwent a series of investigations that effectively 
ruled out TCP as a cause of their complaints 
The problem I have with (1) is that I really would like to know whether the subjects have indeed signed an 
informed consent that stipulated the risk of the selected diagnostic procedures. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography carries a significant risk for pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. Did the 
institutional ethics committee specifically approve this? 
If the study adopted option (2) I would like to know what the underlying symptoms were and whether the 
authors have diagnosed other, perhaps unrelated disorders. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. 
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 paper, either now or in the future? Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the 
publication of this paper, either now or in the future? 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 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? 
Do you have any other financial competing interests? 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? 
Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 2  16 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Joost P Drenth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The authors have addressed the majority of the issues. I have still one single issue. 
The authors point out that they selected 99 unrelated ethnically matched controls that were subjected to 
computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. They way the authors have put it does not discern between 2 possibilities that led to the selection of the 
control subjects. 
(1) The control subjects were specifically selected for this study 
(2) The controls had complaints reminiscent of TCP and underwent a series of investigations that effectively 
ruled out TCP as a cause of their complaints 
The problem I have with (1) is that I really would like to know whether the subjects have indeed signed an 
informed consent that stipulated the risk of the selected diagnostic procedures. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography carries a significant risk for pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. Did the 
institutional ethics committee specifically approve this? 
If the study adopted option (2) I would like to know what the underlying symptoms were and whether the 
authors have diagnosed other, perhaps unrelated disorders. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. 
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 paper, either now or in the future? Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the 
publication of this paper, either now or in the future? 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 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? 
Do you have any other financial competing interests? 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 2  16 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Joost P Drenth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The authors have addressed the majority of the issues. I have still one single issue. 
The authors point out that they selected 99 unrelated ethnically matched controls that were subjected to 
computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. They way the authors have put it does not discern between 2 possibilities that led to the selection of the 
control subjects. 
(1) The control subjects were specifically selected for this study 
(2) The controls had complaints reminiscent of TCP and underwent a series of investigations that effectively 
ruled out TCP as a cause of their complaints 
The problem I have with (1) is that I really would like to know whether the subjects have indeed signed an 
informed consent that stipulated the risk of the selected diagnostic procedures. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography carries a significant risk for pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. Did the 
institutional ethics committee specifically approve this? 
If the study adopted option (2) I would like to know what the underlying symptoms were and whether the 
authors have diagnosed other, perhaps unrelated disorders. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. 
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 paper, either now or in the future? Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the 
publication of this paper, either now or in the future? 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 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? 
Do you have any other financial competing interests? 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? 
assistant