Reviewer's report 
 Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B possibly associates with pathogenesis of Title: 
ulcerative colitis 
 2  5 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 elizabeth furrie Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript demonstrates that there may be a subset of UC patients with high levels of IgE some of which is directed towards SEB. From this data it is impossible to dissect whether this is the initiating factor in UC or the progression factor. This should be made clear in the text 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Further points 
1. Figure 8 still has no isotype control 
2. Figure 11, the authors have misunderstood my initial comment about this figure. There is too 
much statistical analyses which detracts from the important comparison in this figure. UC only 
against normal and UC only against UC-CRS. That is what you should be analysing not just 
everything against everything else. The real story is the AND after SEB exposure in the UC-CRS 
versus the UC only. As it stands this figure is difficult to follow and unhelpful. The authors need to 
think what they are trying to say. 3. Figure 12 is also over analysed furthermore the authors have completely missed out any mention 
of the symbol& in the figure legend. What are the critical comparisons in this work and what does it 
mean in the context of the manuscript. 
4. Page 12 line 1. It is not acceptable just to miss out the primary antibody an isotype control must be 
used please amend this in the text. 
5. Page 22 line 18 sentence beginning Although This sentence makes no sense please clarify 
6. Please remember that et al should be in italics 7. The English in this second draft is much improved. There are still some grammatical errors present and the authors need to read the final draft very carefully 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competeing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B possibly associates with pathogenesis of Title: 
ulcerative colitis 
 2  5 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 elizabeth furrie Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript demonstrates that there may be a subset of UC patients with high levels of IgE some of which is directed towards SEB. From this data it is impossible to dissect whether this is the initiating factor in UC or the progression factor. This should be made clear in the text 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Further points 
1. Figure 8 still has no isotype control 
2. Figure 11, the authors have misunderstood my initial comment about this figure. There is too 
much statistical analyses which detracts from the important comparison in this figure. UC only 
against normal and UC only against UC-CRS. That is what you should be analysing not just 
everything against everything else. The real story is the AND after SEB exposure in the UC-CRS 
versus the UC only. As it stands this figure is difficult to follow and unhelpful. The authors need to 
think what they are trying to say. 3. Figure 12 is also over analysed furthermore the authors have completely missed out any mention 
of the symbol& in the figure legend. What are the critical comparisons in this work and what does it 
mean in the context of the manuscript. 
4. Page 12 line 1. It is not acceptable just to miss out the primary antibody an isotype control must be 
used please amend this in the text. 
5. Page 22 line 18 sentence beginning Although This sentence makes no sense please clarify 
6. Please remember that et al should be in italics 7. The English in this second draft is much improved. There are still some grammatical errors present and the authors need to read the final draft very carefully 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competeing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B possibly associates with pathogenesis of Title: 
ulcerative colitis 
 2  5 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 elizabeth furrie Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript demonstrates that there may be a subset of UC patients with high levels of IgE some of which is directed towards SEB. From this data it is impossible to dissect whether this is the initiating factor in UC or the progression factor. This should be made clear in the text 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Further points 
1. Figure 8 still has no isotype control 
2. Figure 11, the authors have misunderstood my initial comment about this figure. There is too 
much statistical analyses which detracts from the important comparison in this figure. UC only 
against normal and UC only against UC-CRS. That is what you should be analysing not just 
everything against everything else. The real story is the AND after SEB exposure in the UC-CRS 
versus the UC only. As it stands this figure is difficult to follow and unhelpful. The authors need to 
think what they are trying to say. 3. Figure 12 is also over analysed furthermore the authors have completely missed out any mention 
of the symbol& in the figure legend. What are the critical comparisons in this work and what does it 
mean in the context of the manuscript. 
4. Page 12 line 1. It is not acceptable just to miss out the primary antibody an isotype control must be 
used please amend this in the text. 
5. Page 22 line 18 sentence beginning Although This sentence makes no sense please clarify 
6. Please remember that et al should be in italics 7. The English in this second draft is much improved. There are still some grammatical errors present and the authors need to read the final draft very carefully 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competeing interests 
assistant