Reviewer's report
Title:Small intestinal mucosa expression of putative chaperone fls485
Version: 1Date:15 April 2009
Reviewer: Michael George
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a study of fls485 mRNA and protein localization in human
small intestinal tissue with the goal of increasing understanding of its potential to
function in differentiation of epithelial cells along the crypt-vilus axis. While such
information would be of interest in the field, there are concerns with this set of
data that will need to be addressed. No functional information was presented and
the localization analysis with regard to the CVA did not supply any relevant new
information. Improvements in the experiments and data presentation will help to
more clearly address the questions of fls485 localization and function.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. No molecular weight markers were run with the Western blots gels, thus
detection of fls485 cannot be confirmed. The Western blot analysis in Figure
2C-D showing significantly different staining patterns in tissues and a loss of the
double band at 50-55 KDa detected by Ab #7 in the cell lines in Figure 1 adds
further concerns to the protein analyses. Improvements may require a better
antibody. It would be very interesting to see fluorescent images of GFP tagged
fls485 in healthy and diseased tissues, and may add considerable insight into
both localization and function.
2. The data in Figure 3A-B are confusing. Because the control data is plotted, it is
unclear what the “fold change” is in comparison to. Figure 3C-D does not supply
any information that supports the graphs shown in A-B. The authors should show
expression of fls485 in celiac diseased tissue versus healthy control tissue and
demonstrate a reduction.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The authors should provide references for numerous descriptions of “standard
procedures”, “standard protocols”, “conventional clinical and histological criteria”,
etc. described in the Methods section.
2. Lines should be numbered for review
3. The Discussion should focus less on restating previous findings and discuss
the implications of the results obtained by the authors. This section is expected to
improve substantially once the suggested experimental improvements have been
made
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Writing is difficult to read in several places
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Small intestinal mucosa expression of putative chaperone fls485
Version: 1Date:15 April 2009
Reviewer: Michael George
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a study of fls485 mRNA and protein localization in human
small intestinal tissue with the goal of increasing understanding of its potential to
function in differentiation of epithelial cells along the crypt-vilus axis. While such
information would be of interest in the field, there are concerns with this set of
data that will need to be addressed. No functional information was presented and
the localization analysis with regard to the CVA did not supply any relevant new
information. Improvements in the experiments and data presentation will help to
more clearly address the questions of fls485 localization and function.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. No molecular weight markers were run with the Western blots gels, thus
detection of fls485 cannot be confirmed. The Western blot analysis in Figure
2C-D showing significantly different staining patterns in tissues and a loss of the
double band at 50-55 KDa detected by Ab #7 in the cell lines in Figure 1 adds
further concerns to the protein analyses. Improvements may require a better
antibody. It would be very interesting to see fluorescent images of GFP tagged
fls485 in healthy and diseased tissues, and may add considerable insight into
both localization and function.
2. The data in Figure 3A-B are confusing. Because the control data is plotted, it is
unclear what the “fold change” is in comparison to. Figure 3C-D does not supply
any information that supports the graphs shown in A-B. The authors should show
expression of fls485 in celiac diseased tissue versus healthy control tissue and
demonstrate a reduction.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The authors should provide references for numerous descriptions of “standard
procedures”, “standard protocols”, “conventional clinical and histological criteria”,
etc. described in the Methods section.
2. Lines should be numbered for review
3. The Discussion should focus less on restating previous findings and discuss
the implications of the results obtained by the authors. This section is expected to
improve substantially once the suggested experimental improvements have been
made
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Writing is difficult to read in several places
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Small intestinal mucosa expression of putative chaperone fls485
Version: 1Date:15 April 2009
Reviewer: Michael George
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a study of fls485 mRNA and protein localization in human
small intestinal tissue with the goal of increasing understanding of its potential to
function in differentiation of epithelial cells along the crypt-vilus axis. While such
information would be of interest in the field, there are concerns with this set of
data that will need to be addressed. No functional information was presented and
the localization analysis with regard to the CVA did not supply any relevant new
information. Improvements in the experiments and data presentation will help to
more clearly address the questions of fls485 localization and function.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. No molecular weight markers were run with the Western blots gels, thus
detection of fls485 cannot be confirmed. The Western blot analysis in Figure
2C-D showing significantly different staining patterns in tissues and a loss of the
double band at 50-55 KDa detected by Ab #7 in the cell lines in Figure 1 adds
further concerns to the protein analyses. Improvements may require a better
antibody. It would be very interesting to see fluorescent images of GFP tagged
fls485 in healthy and diseased tissues, and may add considerable insight into
both localization and function.
2. The data in Figure 3A-B are confusing. Because the control data is plotted, it is
unclear what the “fold change” is in comparison to. Figure 3C-D does not supply
any information that supports the graphs shown in A-B. The authors should show
expression of fls485 in celiac diseased tissue versus healthy control tissue and
demonstrate a reduction.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The authors should provide references for numerous descriptions of “standard
procedures”, “standard protocols”, “conventional clinical and histological criteria”,
etc. described in the Methods section.
2. Lines should be numbered for review
3. The Discussion should focus less on restating previous findings and discuss
the implications of the results obtained by the authors. This section is expected to
improve substantially once the suggested experimental improvements have been
made
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Writing is difficult to read in several places
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 no competing interests
assistant