Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparative experimental investigation on the effic acy of mono - and multiprobiotic 
strains  in non -alcoholic fatty liver disease prevention  
 
Version: 0 Date: 25 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Thirunavukkarasu Chinnasamy  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear editor.  
Greeting s. Thanks for giving an opportunity to read interesting article submitted by N. Kobyliak 
et al.,. Obviously it is socially important article. The article is well planned and executed. The 
article may be accepted after a revision.  
 
Major concern:  
 
1. NAFLD  is induced by MSG, at the age of 2nd and 10th day; treatment was initiated at 
the age of 1 month and experiment was terminated after 4 months. How far MSG 
administered liver (group 2 to 7) differ from healthy control (group 1) at beginning of the  
treatment (at 1 month)' this can be demonstrated by liver histology (at least through 
serum lipid profile). This will demonstrate (some extend), the probiotics interfere with 
intestinal absorption or it can reduce the stored lipids in liver.  
 
2. To strengt hen the manuscript, liver H&E may be shown in all the groups in addition to 
"Oil red O staining" of liver.  
 
3. Since author has supplemented animals with microbes, intestine histology may be shown.  
 
4. Another major concern I have about this manuscript is: 'Discussion'. It may be rewritten 
concentrating clinical importance and mechanism (e.g PLoS One. 2015 Sep 
16;10(9):e0138078. ;  Br J Nutr. 2015 Dec;114(11):1745 -55.).  
 
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, please 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 expl ain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessm ent in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, c onsidering 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 stocks 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that 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 authors'  
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 included 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: Comparative experimental investigation on the effic acy of mono - and multiprobiotic 
strains  in non -alcoholic fatty liver disease prevention  
 
Version: 0 Date: 25 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Thirunavukkarasu Chinnasamy  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear editor.  
Greeting s. Thanks for giving an opportunity to read interesting article submitted by N. Kobyliak 
et al.,. Obviously it is socially important article. The article is well planned and executed. The 
article may be accepted after a revision.  
 
Major concern:  
 
1. NAFLD  is induced by MSG, at the age of 2nd and 10th day; treatment was initiated at 
the age of 1 month and experiment was terminated after 4 months. How far MSG 
administered liver (group 2 to 7) differ from healthy control (group 1) at beginning of the  
treatment (at 1 month)' this can be demonstrated by liver histology (at least through 
serum lipid profile). This will demonstrate (some extend), the probiotics interfere with 
intestinal absorption or it can reduce the stored lipids in liver.  
 
2. To strengt hen the manuscript, liver H&E may be shown in all the groups in addition to 
"Oil red O staining" of liver.  
 
3. Since author has supplemented animals with microbes, intestine histology may be shown.  
 
4. Another major concern I have about this manuscript is: 'Discussion'. It may be rewritten 
concentrating clinical importance and mechanism (e.g PLoS One. 2015 Sep 
16;10(9):e0138078. ;  Br J Nutr. 2015 Dec;114(11):1745 -55.).  
 
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, please 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 expl ain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessm ent in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, c onsidering 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 stocks 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that 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 authors'  
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 included 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: Comparative experimental investigation on the effic acy of mono - and multiprobiotic 
strains  in non -alcoholic fatty liver disease prevention  
 
Version: 0 Date: 25 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Thirunavukkarasu Chinnasamy  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear editor.  
Greeting s. Thanks for giving an opportunity to read interesting article submitted by N. Kobyliak 
et al.,. Obviously it is socially important article. The article is well planned and executed. The 
article may be accepted after a revision.  
 
Major concern:  
 
1. NAFLD  is induced by MSG, at the age of 2nd and 10th day; treatment was initiated at 
the age of 1 month and experiment was terminated after 4 months. How far MSG 
administered liver (group 2 to 7) differ from healthy control (group 1) at beginning of the  
treatment (at 1 month)' this can be demonstrated by liver histology (at least through 
serum lipid profile). This will demonstrate (some extend), the probiotics interfere with 
intestinal absorption or it can reduce the stored lipids in liver.  
 
2. To strengt hen the manuscript, liver H&E may be shown in all the groups in addition to 
"Oil red O staining" of liver.  
 
3. Since author has supplemented animals with microbes, intestine histology may be shown.  
 
4. Another major concern I have about this manuscript is: 'Discussion'. It may be rewritten 
concentrating clinical importance and mechanism (e.g PLoS One. 2015 Sep 
16;10(9):e0138078. ;  Br J Nutr. 2015 Dec;114(11):1745 -55.).  
 
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, please 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 expl ain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessm ent in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, c onsidering 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 stocks 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that 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 authors'  
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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
 
assistant