Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 1Date:14 October 2007
Reviewer: Kentaro Sugano
Reviewer's report:
General
In this study, authors explored expression of GATA 4, GATA6 and its
downstream target, Indian Hedgehog (IHH) by immunohistochemistry and in situ
hybridization.
A detailed comparative study on the expression pattern of these morphogenic
factors (GATA 4, 6 and IHH) in the normal and pathological human digestive tract
has not been described and interesting. However, some of the findings described
in this study are reported by other researchers with discrepant results, requiring
further consideration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. IHH expression in the stomach
There are discrepant reports on the expression of IHH: Van den Brink et
al.described no IHH expression in the stomach (Gastroenterology 2001; 121;
317-328), whereas Fukaya et al. demonstrated its expression limited in the pit
cells by both immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR (Gastroenterology 2006; 131;
14-29). The data in these two reports are thus different from author’s data,
showing IHH in the glandular lesions of the stomach. How do you explain this
discrepancy? If the discordant results are due to antibody specificity, authors
should re-examine the expression of IHH with the antibodies used in the previous
studies.
2. GATA6 expression in the stomach
Previous report (Gastroenterology 112; 1559-67, 1997) showed GATA 6
expression in the rodent ECL cells and ECL tumors, whereas authors did not
detect GATA 6 in the normal human gastric mucosa but can detect it in the
hyperplastic neuroendocrine cells. As GATA 6 was shown to bind to a promoter
site of histidine decarboxylase, a marker of ECL cells which comprises a very
small population in the normal gastric mucosa, authors should re-examine the
expression of GATA 6 more carefully in the normal human stomach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Minor
1. Proper use of superscript/subscript for 33P , H2O2, 106cpm in page 6 should
be used.
2. Goblet cells should be written as goblet cells. (p.7, legend to figure 3)
3. Na+/K+-ATPase is not specific for parietal cells. Is this a mistake?
(H+,K+-ATPase is specific for parietal cells.) (p.8, legend to figure 3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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 none of the conflicts of interests described above.
Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 1Date:14 October 2007
Reviewer: Kentaro Sugano
Reviewer's report:
General
In this study, authors explored expression of GATA 4, GATA6 and its
downstream target, Indian Hedgehog (IHH) by immunohistochemistry and in situ
hybridization.
A detailed comparative study on the expression pattern of these morphogenic
factors (GATA 4, 6 and IHH) in the normal and pathological human digestive tract
has not been described and interesting. However, some of the findings described
in this study are reported by other researchers with discrepant results, requiring
further consideration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. IHH expression in the stomach
There are discrepant reports on the expression of IHH: Van den Brink et
al.described no IHH expression in the stomach (Gastroenterology 2001; 121;
317-328), whereas Fukaya et al. demonstrated its expression limited in the pit
cells by both immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR (Gastroenterology 2006; 131;
14-29). The data in these two reports are thus different from author’s data,
showing IHH in the glandular lesions of the stomach. How do you explain this
discrepancy? If the discordant results are due to antibody specificity, authors
should re-examine the expression of IHH with the antibodies used in the previous
studies.
2. GATA6 expression in the stomach
Previous report (Gastroenterology 112; 1559-67, 1997) showed GATA 6
expression in the rodent ECL cells and ECL tumors, whereas authors did not
detect GATA 6 in the normal human gastric mucosa but can detect it in the
hyperplastic neuroendocrine cells. As GATA 6 was shown to bind to a promoter
site of histidine decarboxylase, a marker of ECL cells which comprises a very
small population in the normal gastric mucosa, authors should re-examine the
expression of GATA 6 more carefully in the normal human stomach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Minor
1. Proper use of superscript/subscript for 33P , H2O2, 106cpm in page 6 should
be used.
2. Goblet cells should be written as goblet cells. (p.7, legend to figure 3)
3. Na+/K+-ATPase is not specific for parietal cells. Is this a mistake?
(H+,K+-ATPase is specific for parietal cells.) (p.8, legend to figure 3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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 none of the conflicts of interests described above.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 1Date:14 October 2007
Reviewer: Kentaro Sugano
Reviewer's report:
General
In this study, authors explored expression of GATA 4, GATA6 and its
downstream target, Indian Hedgehog (IHH) by immunohistochemistry and in situ
hybridization.
A detailed comparative study on the expression pattern of these morphogenic
factors (GATA 4, 6 and IHH) in the normal and pathological human digestive tract
has not been described and interesting. However, some of the findings described
in this study are reported by other researchers with discrepant results, requiring
further consideration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. IHH expression in the stomach
There are discrepant reports on the expression of IHH: Van den Brink et
al.described no IHH expression in the stomach (Gastroenterology 2001; 121;
317-328), whereas Fukaya et al. demonstrated its expression limited in the pit
cells by both immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR (Gastroenterology 2006; 131;
14-29). The data in these two reports are thus different from author’s data,
showing IHH in the glandular lesions of the stomach. How do you explain this
discrepancy? If the discordant results are due to antibody specificity, authors
should re-examine the expression of IHH with the antibodies used in the previous
studies.
2. GATA6 expression in the stomach
Previous report (Gastroenterology 112; 1559-67, 1997) showed GATA 6
expression in the rodent ECL cells and ECL tumors, whereas authors did not
detect GATA 6 in the normal human gastric mucosa but can detect it in the
hyperplastic neuroendocrine cells. As GATA 6 was shown to bind to a promoter
site of histidine decarboxylase, a marker of ECL cells which comprises a very
small population in the normal gastric mucosa, authors should re-examine the
expression of GATA 6 more carefully in the normal human stomach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Minor
1. Proper use of superscript/subscript for 33P , H2O2, 106cpm in page 6 should
be used.
2. Goblet cells should be written as goblet cells. (p.7, legend to figure 3)
3. Na+/K+-ATPase is not specific for parietal cells. Is this a mistake?
(H+,K+-ATPase is specific for parietal cells.) (p.8, legend to figure 3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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 none of the conflicts of interests described above.
assistant