Title: Quantitative proteomic studies of the intestinal mucosa provide new insights into the
molecular mechanism of ulcerative colitis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2024
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the manuscript is mixed. The previous
reviewers comments were sufficiently addressed, but the work is not particularly novel or
original, yet presents itself as such. Their main finding around TXNDC5 was previously reported
by whole transcriptomics (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9498489/) but the authors
do not cite this paper nor state their work is orthogonally confirmatory, which it is. If they
presented it as such, I would have less objection. As it stands, they overstate the novelty of their
findings.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study itself is solid. The issue is the interpretation and overstating of the novelty of their
finding, as described previously."
Title: Quantitative proteomic studies of the intestinal mucosa provide new insights into the
molecular mechanism of ulcerative colitis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2024
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the manuscript is mixed. The previous
reviewers comments were sufficiently addressed, but the work is not particularly novel or
original, yet presents itself as such. Their main finding around TXNDC5 was previously reported
by whole transcriptomics (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9498489/) but the authors
do not cite this paper nor state their work is orthogonally confirmatory, which it is. If they
presented it as such, I would have less objection. As it stands, they overstate the novelty of their
findings.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study itself is solid. The issue is the interpretation and overstating of the novelty of their
finding, as described previously."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Quantitative proteomic studies of the intestinal mucosa provide new insights into the
molecular mechanism of ulcerative colitis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2024
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the manuscript is mixed. The previous
reviewers comments were sufficiently addressed, but the work is not particularly novel or
original, yet presents itself as such. Their main finding around TXNDC5 was previously reported
by whole transcriptomics (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9498489/) but the authors
do not cite this paper nor state their work is orthogonally confirmatory, which it is. If they
presented it as such, I would have less objection. As it stands, they overstate the novelty of their
findings.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study itself is solid. The issue is the interpretation and overstating of the novelty of their
finding, as described previously."
assistant