Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 1Date:5 October 2009
Reviewer: Guida Maria Portela-Gomes
Reviewer's report:
Ishiguro et al report in their study that the topical application of a low
pH-dependent fluorescent dye [4-nitro-7-piperazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole
(NBD-PZ)] to the colonic mucosa of mice, models of both acute and chronic
colitis, reveals the destruction of crypts and infiltration of inflammatory cells.
The title and abstract are correct, the results are sound and the discussion is well
balanced.
The study is interesting as it may provide a novel technique for evaluation of
colitis, however, as the authors carefully mention in their conclusion, it needs
clinical validation.
Essential Revision:
My only comment is that the Methods (which are appropriate) are not well
described - parts that are written in Results, regarding the methods that have
been used, should be written in Material and Methods, not in Results. For
example, the duration of incubation and the NBD-PZ concentration are written in
p.10 (Results) and should be in p.7 (Material and Methods). Also the method
used to sacrifice the mice and the duration of the paraformaldehyde fixation
should be mentioned. The Material and Methods and Results should be carefully
revised in this respect.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 1Date:5 October 2009
Reviewer: Guida Maria Portela-Gomes
Reviewer's report:
Ishiguro et al report in their study that the topical application of a low
pH-dependent fluorescent dye [4-nitro-7-piperazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole
(NBD-PZ)] to the colonic mucosa of mice, models of both acute and chronic
colitis, reveals the destruction of crypts and infiltration of inflammatory cells.
The title and abstract are correct, the results are sound and the discussion is well
balanced.
The study is interesting as it may provide a novel technique for evaluation of
colitis, however, as the authors carefully mention in their conclusion, it needs
clinical validation.
Essential Revision:
My only comment is that the Methods (which are appropriate) are not well
described - parts that are written in Results, regarding the methods that have
been used, should be written in Material and Methods, not in Results. For
example, the duration of incubation and the NBD-PZ concentration are written in
p.10 (Results) and should be in p.7 (Material and Methods). Also the method
used to sacrifice the mice and the duration of the paraformaldehyde fixation
should be mentioned. The Material and Methods and Results should be carefully
revised in this respect.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 1Date:5 October 2009
Reviewer: Guida Maria Portela-Gomes
Reviewer's report:
Ishiguro et al report in their study that the topical application of a low
pH-dependent fluorescent dye [4-nitro-7-piperazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole
(NBD-PZ)] to the colonic mucosa of mice, models of both acute and chronic
colitis, reveals the destruction of crypts and infiltration of inflammatory cells.
The title and abstract are correct, the results are sound and the discussion is well
balanced.
The study is interesting as it may provide a novel technique for evaluation of
colitis, however, as the authors carefully mention in their conclusion, it needs
clinical validation.
Essential Revision:
My only comment is that the Methods (which are appropriate) are not well
described - parts that are written in Results, regarding the methods that have
been used, should be written in Material and Methods, not in Results. For
example, the duration of incubation and the NBD-PZ concentration are written in
p.10 (Results) and should be in p.7 (Material and Methods). Also the method
used to sacrifice the mice and the duration of the paraformaldehyde fixation
should be mentioned. The Material and Methods and Results should be carefully
revised in this respect.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant