Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N -background mice 
carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeffrey Franklin  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In the manuscript,  "Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N 
background mice carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor", Dantsuka et al., 
expressed the constitutively activated CA -AhR receptor with a PAS ligand binding deletion, 
under t he control of a tissue restricted SV40 transgene driver promoter (with an IgH intron 
enhancer). This was first developed and used in mice in two publications from Andersson et al in 
2002 and 2005 with mice in the C57BL/6 background. Dantsuka has crossed th e CA -AhR 
transgene into the FVB/N background to determine if there are any changes in phenotype under 
this condition. Both sets of manuscripts described similar changes in the gastric epithelium and 
surrounding stroma that is the focus in each sets of pape rs. The authors specifically cite strain 
specific changes in the FVB/N background as a reason why this is a step forward in this 
publication, although some differences may have to do with the characterization of the 
phenotype as being a tumor model vs. som ething less indicative of that in this publication. The 
authors point out that their phenotype occurs earlier than what is generally observed in the 
C57BL/6 background, although the mice did not die over the course of the experiment, unlike 
what had happen ed with Andersson et al. published work (here Dantsuka et al, did not age the 
mice as long as was done previously, but given that the phenotype occurs earlier, this could mean 
there is a more dramatic background in these mice).  
My major criticism of this manuscript is that it is not clear what is the same, what is different and 
what is a different interpretation of the gastric phenotype between these two groups. This 
manuscript only has a short section discussing some small differences. At first glance the se 
phenotypes look similar overall in many ways.  
Therefore there should be a substantial section added to the discussion that describes the 
differences, similarities and different interpretations in the overall phenotype in the stomach 
between groups. If interpretation of the phenotype is dissimilar the reasons for the different 
conclusions should be discussed. The differences in methods used to analyze mice should be 
clearly discussed. A table with these points should be added to the manuscript so it is e asy for 
people reading the manuscript to understand the new implications of this manuscript.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend addi tional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 com peting 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.  
 
None  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jou rnal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N -background mice 
carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeffrey Franklin  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In the manuscript,  "Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N 
background mice carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor", Dantsuka et al., 
expressed the constitutively activated CA -AhR receptor with a PAS ligand binding deletion, 
under t he control of a tissue restricted SV40 transgene driver promoter (with an IgH intron 
enhancer). This was first developed and used in mice in two publications from Andersson et al in 
2002 and 2005 with mice in the C57BL/6 background. Dantsuka has crossed th e CA -AhR 
transgene into the FVB/N background to determine if there are any changes in phenotype under 
this condition. Both sets of manuscripts described similar changes in the gastric epithelium and 
surrounding stroma that is the focus in each sets of pape rs. The authors specifically cite strain 
specific changes in the FVB/N background as a reason why this is a step forward in this 
publication, although some differences may have to do with the characterization of the 
phenotype as being a tumor model vs. som ething less indicative of that in this publication. The 
authors point out that their phenotype occurs earlier than what is generally observed in the 
C57BL/6 background, although the mice did not die over the course of the experiment, unlike 
what had happen ed with Andersson et al. published work (here Dantsuka et al, did not age the 
mice as long as was done previously, but given that the phenotype occurs earlier, this could mean 
there is a more dramatic background in these mice).  
My major criticism of this manuscript is that it is not clear what is the same, what is different and 
what is a different interpretation of the gastric phenotype between these two groups. This 
manuscript only has a short section discussing some small differences. At first glance the se 
phenotypes look similar overall in many ways.  
Therefore there should be a substantial section added to the discussion that describes the 
differences, similarities and different interpretations in the overall phenotype in the stomach 
between groups. If interpretation of the phenotype is dissimilar the reasons for the different 
conclusions should be discussed. The differences in methods used to analyze mice should be 
clearly discussed. A table with these points should be added to the manuscript so it is e asy for 
people reading the manuscript to understand the new implications of this manuscript.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend addi tional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 com peting 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.  
 
None  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jou rnal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N -background mice 
carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeffrey Franklin  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In the manuscript,  "Histopathological features of the proper gastric glands in FVB/N 
background mice carrying constitutively -active aryl -hydrocarbon receptor", Dantsuka et al., 
expressed the constitutively activated CA -AhR receptor with a PAS ligand binding deletion, 
under t he control of a tissue restricted SV40 transgene driver promoter (with an IgH intron 
enhancer). This was first developed and used in mice in two publications from Andersson et al in 
2002 and 2005 with mice in the C57BL/6 background. Dantsuka has crossed th e CA -AhR 
transgene into the FVB/N background to determine if there are any changes in phenotype under 
this condition. Both sets of manuscripts described similar changes in the gastric epithelium and 
surrounding stroma that is the focus in each sets of pape rs. The authors specifically cite strain 
specific changes in the FVB/N background as a reason why this is a step forward in this 
publication, although some differences may have to do with the characterization of the 
phenotype as being a tumor model vs. som ething less indicative of that in this publication. The 
authors point out that their phenotype occurs earlier than what is generally observed in the 
C57BL/6 background, although the mice did not die over the course of the experiment, unlike 
what had happen ed with Andersson et al. published work (here Dantsuka et al, did not age the 
mice as long as was done previously, but given that the phenotype occurs earlier, this could mean 
there is a more dramatic background in these mice).  
My major criticism of this manuscript is that it is not clear what is the same, what is different and 
what is a different interpretation of the gastric phenotype between these two groups. This 
manuscript only has a short section discussing some small differences. At first glance the se 
phenotypes look similar overall in many ways.  
Therefore there should be a substantial section added to the discussion that describes the 
differences, similarities and different interpretations in the overall phenotype in the stomach 
between groups. If interpretation of the phenotype is dissimilar the reasons for the different 
conclusions should be discussed. The differences in methods used to analyze mice should be 
clearly discussed. A table with these points should be added to the manuscript so it is e asy for 
people reading the manuscript to understand the new implications of this manuscript.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend addi tional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 com peting 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.  
 
None  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jou rnal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant