Reviewer's report
Title:Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation
Version: 1Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: Robert Ehehalt
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The manuscript "Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation" is
quite interesting. The authors have used human material and could show
differences in different inflammatory disease of the gut. This makes their
investigations in general worth for publication.
However, I suggest the following revisions:
1. Discretionary Revisions:
a. Figure 1 need a better solution for review
b. Where biopsies taken from inflamed and non-inflamed areas of the same
patients? If yes, it would be quite interesting how the intrainduvidual variation
would be. I could imagine that some patients respond stronger than others.
2. Minor Essential Revisions:
a. Discussion: What does the authors mean with adequate and inadequate
secretion? Because there is no correlation to the amount of inflammation I would
suggest being more neutral in the statement.
b. For the semi-quantitative analyses it would be helpful also to show exemplarily
a Western-blot to estimate how solid the quantification can be.
c. How many biosies were taken per patient?
3. Major revisions:
a. The picture quality of figure 1 is to low to make an adjustment. Please provide
figures with a better solution.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation
Version: 1Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: Robert Ehehalt
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The manuscript "Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation" is
quite interesting. The authors have used human material and could show
differences in different inflammatory disease of the gut. This makes their
investigations in general worth for publication.
However, I suggest the following revisions:
1. Discretionary Revisions:
a. Figure 1 need a better solution for review
b. Where biopsies taken from inflamed and non-inflamed areas of the same
patients? If yes, it would be quite interesting how the intrainduvidual variation
would be. I could imagine that some patients respond stronger than others.
2. Minor Essential Revisions:
a. Discussion: What does the authors mean with adequate and inadequate
secretion? Because there is no correlation to the amount of inflammation I would
suggest being more neutral in the statement.
b. For the semi-quantitative analyses it would be helpful also to show exemplarily
a Western-blot to estimate how solid the quantification can be.
c. How many biosies were taken per patient?
3. Major revisions:
a. The picture quality of figure 1 is to low to make an adjustment. Please provide
figures with a better solution.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation
Version: 1Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: Robert Ehehalt
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The manuscript "Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation" is
quite interesting. The authors have used human material and could show
differences in different inflammatory disease of the gut. This makes their
investigations in general worth for publication.
However, I suggest the following revisions:
1. Discretionary Revisions:
a. Figure 1 need a better solution for review
b. Where biopsies taken from inflamed and non-inflamed areas of the same
patients? If yes, it would be quite interesting how the intrainduvidual variation
would be. I could imagine that some patients respond stronger than others.
2. Minor Essential Revisions:
a. Discussion: What does the authors mean with adequate and inadequate
secretion? Because there is no correlation to the amount of inflammation I would
suggest being more neutral in the statement.
b. For the semi-quantitative analyses it would be helpful also to show exemplarily
a Western-blot to estimate how solid the quantification can be.
c. How many biosies were taken per patient?
3. Major revisions:
a. The picture quality of figure 1 is to low to make an adjustment. Please provide
figures with a better solution.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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