Title: Expression of tricellular tight junction proteins and the paracellular macromolecule barrier
are recovered in remission of ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript is well written clear and concise. The conclusion that levels of tricellulin and
permeability are restored is valid, given a more detailed example of sample distribution (see
below). For other member of the tight junction complex Angulin 2-3, and Cldn 2 there is
evidence that levels somewhat similar although no pvalues are presented. Without UC active
the authors cannot conclude that levels are restored.
Minor:
There is very little information available about the enrolled patients in table 1.
There are very few UC patients in this study. Manuscript would benefit from a second table
listing characteristics for each UC patient. Table2 (UC active patient characteristics) should
include Mayo subscore, gender, medication, disease activity, per patient. For remission patients,
the length of remission should be listed.
Line 101 states that a total of 36 pieces of biopsies were collected from 14 UC patients. Does
this mean that 36 pieces were collected from each of the 14 patient biopsies for a total of 504
pieces? Or did some samples donate more pieces than others?
Authors state that UC active group includes mild, moderate and severe disease activity. This
information should be clearly presented in table 2 (see above). If for example more “pieces”
of biopsies were analyzed from a UC severe patient, this could affect the interpretation of the
results. The comparison would then be between severe UC and normal.
In Figure 1a (tricellulin protein expression of human intestinal tissues) why are there six
observations for UC active when there are 4 patients. Please explain the relationship between
the number of plotted observation in the graphs and patient samples.  If samples are taken from
the same biopsy are they statistically independent observations?
What was the technical reason that angulin-1 of UC active could not be determined?
Have the authors considered different mRNA capture techniques?
It should be possible to get qRT-PCR results for Angulin1-3 as well as Cldn 2 and 4. If nothing
else but to contrast results.
For figure 2 (Combined scatter and bar plots …) there are no pvalues indicated in legend. Even
if the comparisons are non-significant the pvalues should be listed.
Title: Expression of tricellular tight junction proteins and the paracellular macromolecule barrier
are recovered in remission of ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript is well written clear and concise. The conclusion that levels of tricellulin and
permeability are restored is valid, given a more detailed example of sample distribution (see
below). For other member of the tight junction complex Angulin 2-3, and Cldn 2 there is
evidence that levels somewhat similar although no pvalues are presented. Without UC active
the authors cannot conclude that levels are restored.
Minor:
There is very little information available about the enrolled patients in table 1.
There are very few UC patients in this study. Manuscript would benefit from a second table
listing characteristics for each UC patient. Table2 (UC active patient characteristics) should
include Mayo subscore, gender, medication, disease activity, per patient. For remission patients,
the length of remission should be listed.
Line 101 states that a total of 36 pieces of biopsies were collected from 14 UC patients. Does
this mean that 36 pieces were collected from each of the 14 patient biopsies for a total of 504
pieces? Or did some samples donate more pieces than others?
Authors state that UC active group includes mild, moderate and severe disease activity. This
information should be clearly presented in table 2 (see above). If for example more “pieces”
of biopsies were analyzed from a UC severe patient, this could affect the interpretation of the
results. The comparison would then be between severe UC and normal.
In Figure 1a (tricellulin protein expression of human intestinal tissues) why are there six
observations for UC active when there are 4 patients. Please explain the relationship between
the number of plotted observation in the graphs and patient samples.  If samples are taken from
the same biopsy are they statistically independent observations?
What was the technical reason that angulin-1 of UC active could not be determined?
Have the authors considered different mRNA capture techniques?
It should be possible to get qRT-PCR results for Angulin1-3 as well as Cldn 2 and 4. If nothing
else but to contrast results.
For figure 2 (Combined scatter and bar plots …) there are no pvalues indicated in legend. Even
if the comparisons are non-significant the pvalues should be listed.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Expression of tricellular tight junction proteins and the paracellular macromolecule barrier
are recovered in remission of ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript is well written clear and concise. The conclusion that levels of tricellulin and
permeability are restored is valid, given a more detailed example of sample distribution (see
below). For other member of the tight junction complex Angulin 2-3, and Cldn 2 there is
evidence that levels somewhat similar although no pvalues are presented. Without UC active
the authors cannot conclude that levels are restored.
Minor:
There is very little information available about the enrolled patients in table 1.
There are very few UC patients in this study. Manuscript would benefit from a second table
listing characteristics for each UC patient. Table2 (UC active patient characteristics) should
include Mayo subscore, gender, medication, disease activity, per patient. For remission patients,
the length of remission should be listed.
Line 101 states that a total of 36 pieces of biopsies were collected from 14 UC patients. Does
this mean that 36 pieces were collected from each of the 14 patient biopsies for a total of 504
pieces? Or did some samples donate more pieces than others?
Authors state that UC active group includes mild, moderate and severe disease activity. This
information should be clearly presented in table 2 (see above). If for example more “pieces”
of biopsies were analyzed from a UC severe patient, this could affect the interpretation of the
results. The comparison would then be between severe UC and normal.
In Figure 1a (tricellulin protein expression of human intestinal tissues) why are there six
observations for UC active when there are 4 patients. Please explain the relationship between
the number of plotted observation in the graphs and patient samples.  If samples are taken from
the same biopsy are they statistically independent observations?
What was the technical reason that angulin-1 of UC active could not be determined?
Have the authors considered different mRNA capture techniques?
It should be possible to get qRT-PCR results for Angulin1-3 as well as Cldn 2 and 4. If nothing
else but to contrast results.
For figure 2 (Combined scatter and bar plots …) there are no pvalues indicated in legend. Even
if the comparisons are non-significant the pvalues should be listed.
assistant