Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Synthetic Cannabinoids: A
retrospective cohort study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Please understand that this paper was reviewed
before, so I will use the outline of a re-review even though I was not one of the
original reviewers. 
I have read the response to the original review and have read
the paper and have also reviewed it as if I were an original reviewer
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE
QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS 
Yes the authors addressed the prior comments
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE
MANUSCRIPT 
Yes I think they replied appropriately to the comments raised BUT please see the
number of comments I have raised
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED
MANUSCRIPT 
I like this paper and with appropriate revision, it will definitely add to the
literature. There is one major change that needs to be done; any direct
association of SC toxicity and intestinal ischemia cannot be supported by 
one
patient 
of the 21 patients reviewed and especially with no other patients with
abdominal pain having vasospasm on CT angiography. 
The paper may
""hypothesize"" that SC can cause intestinal 
ischemia, but this study certainly
does not prove it but 
only that SC was associated with intestinal ischemia that
may have also been due to other concomitant drugs.
DOES THIS MEET BEST PRACTICE
Yes I think so but it really is a retrospective review and addresses a potentially
important topic
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD
MAKE 
1. Page 2 line 40-41. With only one patient in 21 of developing what was
interpreted as intestinal ischemia, you really cannot say the SC can lead to
intestinal ischemia; one patient is not supportive of 
such a definitive statement,
but you can say " and even to symptoms suggesting intestinal ischemia"
2. Page 3 line 0 move the abbreviation of (SC) to after the word ""compounds""
3. Page 3 line 7 replace "they" with "SC"
4. Page 3 line 11 add the phrase " in the United States" after the word
""students"" to differentiate this study from reference 3 
5. Page 3 line 36 I would delete the word ""rat"" and say "animal-oriented
poisons"
6. Page 3 lines51-52. If there are no data on the 
presence of CBr2 in the GI tract ,
then you cannot say the action is caused by exciting CBr 2 receptors moreover,
ref 12 addresses the kidney, not the GI tract and by affecting the kidney you
cannot say that SC affects the GI tract- you need to be specific !
7. Page 5 lines 2-3. While I understand why you would "want " to present the
data as means +/- SD, some of your data are not normally distributed such as
length ( actually which should be "duration"") of longest hospitalization and
hospitalization, 
also in table 2 ALT, lactate, when the SD is too large it means
the data are not normally distributed. Also please round off the potassium levels
to only the tenth of a Meq/l; these will need to be presented in non parametric
ways as median and interquartile range and preferably also with range please
consult your statistician
8 page 6 line 17. Delete the word scan ( tomography means scan)
9. Page 8 lines 18-22,page 7 lines3-4 and 
page 8 lines 22-22 
And 36-39 again the
one patient 
with arterial thrombosis and intestinal perforation you might
""suspect"" to be related to SC, but as you say, with the unknown effects of other
concomitant drugs, you cannot be certain that the SC caused the ischemia but
what you can say is that the SC toxicity can suppress symptoms of intestinal
ischemia and may even exacerbate the ischemia. 
But you cannot say SC toxicity
causes intestinal ischemia. See your sentence stating on page 7 line 8
10. Page 7 line 0-1 again these studies do NOT address the GI track- sorry and
especially if the CBr2 receptor is not found in the GI track 
11. Page 7 lines 28-31 I am sorry but this is purely conjecture and should be
deleted; duodenal ulcers have many causes, and most are NOT due to intestinal
ischemia-indeed chronic 
intestinal ischemia is not associated with 
duodenal
ulcers; delete this reference it is not evidence-based. 
To make your point clearly,
you need to stick to the data; 
you have good data please do not speculate on
topics that you cannot support with data
12.Page 7 lines 35-39. This sentence makes no sense if the pain was caused by
intestinal vasospasm, you should have seen it in patients with pain. This
sentence should be deleted
13. Page 9 line 4. Here at the end you may want to postulate that SC may cause
mesenteric vasospasm that might progress to intestinal ischemia, but the data
supporting this theory are ""definitive". 
Your hypothesis 
is reasonable, but it is
your ""hypothesis"" and it would 
it need to be proven. One patient does not
prove this!"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Synthetic Cannabinoids: A
retrospective cohort study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Please understand that this paper was reviewed
before, so I will use the outline of a re-review even though I was not one of the
original reviewers. 
I have read the response to the original review and have read
the paper and have also reviewed it as if I were an original reviewer
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE
QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS 
Yes the authors addressed the prior comments
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE
MANUSCRIPT 
Yes I think they replied appropriately to the comments raised BUT please see the
number of comments I have raised
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED
MANUSCRIPT 
I like this paper and with appropriate revision, it will definitely add to the
literature. There is one major change that needs to be done; any direct
association of SC toxicity and intestinal ischemia cannot be supported by 
one
patient 
of the 21 patients reviewed and especially with no other patients with
abdominal pain having vasospasm on CT angiography. 
The paper may
""hypothesize"" that SC can cause intestinal 
ischemia, but this study certainly
does not prove it but 
only that SC was associated with intestinal ischemia that
may have also been due to other concomitant drugs.
DOES THIS MEET BEST PRACTICE
Yes I think so but it really is a retrospective review and addresses a potentially
important topic
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD
MAKE 
1. Page 2 line 40-41. With only one patient in 21 of developing what was
interpreted as intestinal ischemia, you really cannot say the SC can lead to
intestinal ischemia; one patient is not supportive of 
such a definitive statement,
but you can say " and even to symptoms suggesting intestinal ischemia"
2. Page 3 line 0 move the abbreviation of (SC) to after the word ""compounds""
3. Page 3 line 7 replace "they" with "SC"
4. Page 3 line 11 add the phrase " in the United States" after the word
""students"" to differentiate this study from reference 3 
5. Page 3 line 36 I would delete the word ""rat"" and say "animal-oriented
poisons"
6. Page 3 lines51-52. If there are no data on the 
presence of CBr2 in the GI tract ,
then you cannot say the action is caused by exciting CBr 2 receptors moreover,
ref 12 addresses the kidney, not the GI tract and by affecting the kidney you
cannot say that SC affects the GI tract- you need to be specific !
7. Page 5 lines 2-3. While I understand why you would "want " to present the
data as means +/- SD, some of your data are not normally distributed such as
length ( actually which should be "duration"") of longest hospitalization and
hospitalization, 
also in table 2 ALT, lactate, when the SD is too large it means
the data are not normally distributed. Also please round off the potassium levels
to only the tenth of a Meq/l; these will need to be presented in non parametric
ways as median and interquartile range and preferably also with range please
consult your statistician
8 page 6 line 17. Delete the word scan ( tomography means scan)
9. Page 8 lines 18-22,page 7 lines3-4 and 
page 8 lines 22-22 
And 36-39 again the
one patient 
with arterial thrombosis and intestinal perforation you might
""suspect"" to be related to SC, but as you say, with the unknown effects of other
concomitant drugs, you cannot be certain that the SC caused the ischemia but
what you can say is that the SC toxicity can suppress symptoms of intestinal
ischemia and may even exacerbate the ischemia. 
But you cannot say SC toxicity
causes intestinal ischemia. See your sentence stating on page 7 line 8
10. Page 7 line 0-1 again these studies do NOT address the GI track- sorry and
especially if the CBr2 receptor is not found in the GI track 
11. Page 7 lines 28-31 I am sorry but this is purely conjecture and should be
deleted; duodenal ulcers have many causes, and most are NOT due to intestinal
ischemia-indeed chronic 
intestinal ischemia is not associated with 
duodenal
ulcers; delete this reference it is not evidence-based. 
To make your point clearly,
you need to stick to the data; 
you have good data please do not speculate on
topics that you cannot support with data
12.Page 7 lines 35-39. This sentence makes no sense if the pain was caused by
intestinal vasospasm, you should have seen it in patients with pain. This
sentence should be deleted
13. Page 9 line 4. Here at the end you may want to postulate that SC may cause
mesenteric vasospasm that might progress to intestinal ischemia, but the data
supporting this theory are ""definitive". 
Your hypothesis 
is reasonable, but it is
your ""hypothesis"" and it would 
it need to be proven. One patient does not
prove this!"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Synthetic Cannabinoids: A
retrospective cohort study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
12 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Please understand that this paper was reviewed
before, so I will use the outline of a re-review even though I was not one of the
original reviewers. 
I have read the response to the original review and have read
the paper and have also reviewed it as if I were an original reviewer
HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO EACH OF THE
QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS 
Yes the authors addressed the prior comments
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE
MANUSCRIPT 
Yes I think they replied appropriately to the comments raised BUT please see the
number of comments I have raised
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED
MANUSCRIPT 
I like this paper and with appropriate revision, it will definitely add to the
literature. There is one major change that needs to be done; any direct
association of SC toxicity and intestinal ischemia cannot be supported by 
one
patient 
of the 21 patients reviewed and especially with no other patients with
abdominal pain having vasospasm on CT angiography. 
The paper may
""hypothesize"" that SC can cause intestinal 
ischemia, but this study certainly
does not prove it but 
only that SC was associated with intestinal ischemia that
may have also been due to other concomitant drugs.
DOES THIS MEET BEST PRACTICE
Yes I think so but it really is a retrospective review and addresses a potentially
important topic
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD
MAKE 
1. Page 2 line 40-41. With only one patient in 21 of developing what was
interpreted as intestinal ischemia, you really cannot say the SC can lead to
intestinal ischemia; one patient is not supportive of 
such a definitive statement,
but you can say " and even to symptoms suggesting intestinal ischemia"
2. Page 3 line 0 move the abbreviation of (SC) to after the word ""compounds""
3. Page 3 line 7 replace "they" with "SC"
4. Page 3 line 11 add the phrase " in the United States" after the word
""students"" to differentiate this study from reference 3 
5. Page 3 line 36 I would delete the word ""rat"" and say "animal-oriented
poisons"
6. Page 3 lines51-52. If there are no data on the 
presence of CBr2 in the GI tract ,
then you cannot say the action is caused by exciting CBr 2 receptors moreover,
ref 12 addresses the kidney, not the GI tract and by affecting the kidney you
cannot say that SC affects the GI tract- you need to be specific !
7. Page 5 lines 2-3. While I understand why you would "want " to present the
data as means +/- SD, some of your data are not normally distributed such as
length ( actually which should be "duration"") of longest hospitalization and
hospitalization, 
also in table 2 ALT, lactate, when the SD is too large it means
the data are not normally distributed. Also please round off the potassium levels
to only the tenth of a Meq/l; these will need to be presented in non parametric
ways as median and interquartile range and preferably also with range please
consult your statistician
8 page 6 line 17. Delete the word scan ( tomography means scan)
9. Page 8 lines 18-22,page 7 lines3-4 and 
page 8 lines 22-22 
And 36-39 again the
one patient 
with arterial thrombosis and intestinal perforation you might
""suspect"" to be related to SC, but as you say, with the unknown effects of other
concomitant drugs, you cannot be certain that the SC caused the ischemia but
what you can say is that the SC toxicity can suppress symptoms of intestinal
ischemia and may even exacerbate the ischemia. 
But you cannot say SC toxicity
causes intestinal ischemia. See your sentence stating on page 7 line 8
10. Page 7 line 0-1 again these studies do NOT address the GI track- sorry and
especially if the CBr2 receptor is not found in the GI track 
11. Page 7 lines 28-31 I am sorry but this is purely conjecture and should be
deleted; duodenal ulcers have many causes, and most are NOT due to intestinal
ischemia-indeed chronic 
intestinal ischemia is not associated with 
duodenal
ulcers; delete this reference it is not evidence-based. 
To make your point clearly,
you need to stick to the data; 
you have good data please do not speculate on
topics that you cannot support with data
12.Page 7 lines 35-39. This sentence makes no sense if the pain was caused by
intestinal vasospasm, you should have seen it in patients with pain. This
sentence should be deleted
13. Page 9 line 4. Here at the end you may want to postulate that SC may cause
mesenteric vasospasm that might progress to intestinal ischemia, but the data
supporting this theory are ""definitive". 
Your hypothesis 
is reasonable, but it is
your ""hypothesis"" and it would 
it need to be proven. One patient does not
prove this!"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
assistant