Reviewer's report
Title:Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis
Version: 3Date:19 July 2007
Reviewer: James M Mullin
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job of responding to comments and modifying
where appropriate. I congratulate them on their work. There are two points that
they still may want to further clarify.
Major Comments
I think that the clarification on page 4 needs to be made more clearly that the
biopsies were taken in normal appearing mucosa, not from the diverticuli per se.
This needs to be said exactly. In addition, is there evidence that any
cellular/molecular abnormalities associated with diverticuli would extend to
normal appearing tissue?
Minor Comments
I would still give the reader a fuller explanation of why changes in SCC
necessarily lead to changes in G. Does this mean that transcellular G is
necessarily increased when SCC increases? If this is true, state this in the
manuscript. Many readers would not make the connection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
JM Mullin
Reviewer's report
Title:Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis
Version: 3Date:19 July 2007
Reviewer: James M Mullin
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job of responding to comments and modifying
where appropriate. I congratulate them on their work. There are two points that
they still may want to further clarify.
Major Comments
I think that the clarification on page 4 needs to be made more clearly that the
biopsies were taken in normal appearing mucosa, not from the diverticuli per se.
This needs to be said exactly. In addition, is there evidence that any
cellular/molecular abnormalities associated with diverticuli would extend to
normal appearing tissue?
Minor Comments
I would still give the reader a fuller explanation of why changes in SCC
necessarily lead to changes in G. Does this mean that transcellular G is
necessarily increased when SCC increases? If this is true, state this in the
manuscript. Many readers would not make the connection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
JM Mullin
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis
Version: 3Date:19 July 2007
Reviewer: James M Mullin
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job of responding to comments and modifying
where appropriate. I congratulate them on their work. There are two points that
they still may want to further clarify.
Major Comments
I think that the clarification on page 4 needs to be made more clearly that the
biopsies were taken in normal appearing mucosa, not from the diverticuli per se.
This needs to be said exactly. In addition, is there evidence that any
cellular/molecular abnormalities associated with diverticuli would extend to
normal appearing tissue?
Minor Comments
I would still give the reader a fuller explanation of why changes in SCC
necessarily lead to changes in G. Does this mean that transcellular G is
necessarily increased when SCC increases? If this is true, state this in the
manuscript. Many readers would not make the connection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
JM Mullin
assistant