Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic impact of Immunohistochemical expression of CK7 and CK20 in
curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer
Version:4Date:8 October 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled "Prognostic impact of immunohistochemical expression
of CK7 and CK20 in curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer" has been
adequately revised by the authors. However, some of the questions were still not
addressed.
Major Essential Revisions:
My previous comment seems not to have been addressed: "An association
analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic factors should be
presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the chi-square test,
however, the results from that are not presented other than in the Discussion."
I do not see the point with the sentence "And we did not analyze the other
immunohistochemical subtype by testing expression of MUC1, MUC2 and etc." in
the end of the Discussion. Why was this added to the current version?
Minor Essential Revisions:
The authors have now provided clone for the antibody, but still no information on
manufacturer or at what dilution they were used for immunohistochemistry. Were
the monoclonal antibodies produced in-house? What do the authors mean by
"prediluted"?
Thank you for now providing representative images for immunostainings, they
seem adequate. However, they were now all uploaded as separate figures. I
suggest that the authors provide _one_ figure with the images in four panels.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Prognostic impact of Immunohistochemical expression of CK7 and CK20 in
curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer
Version:4Date:8 October 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled "Prognostic impact of immunohistochemical expression
of CK7 and CK20 in curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer" has been
adequately revised by the authors. However, some of the questions were still not
addressed.
Major Essential Revisions:
My previous comment seems not to have been addressed: "An association
analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic factors should be
presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the chi-square test,
however, the results from that are not presented other than in the Discussion."
I do not see the point with the sentence "And we did not analyze the other
immunohistochemical subtype by testing expression of MUC1, MUC2 and etc." in
the end of the Discussion. Why was this added to the current version?
Minor Essential Revisions:
The authors have now provided clone for the antibody, but still no information on
manufacturer or at what dilution they were used for immunohistochemistry. Were
the monoclonal antibodies produced in-house? What do the authors mean by
"prediluted"?
Thank you for now providing representative images for immunostainings, they
seem adequate. However, they were now all uploaded as separate figures. I
suggest that the authors provide _one_ figure with the images in four panels.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Prognostic impact of Immunohistochemical expression of CK7 and CK20 in
curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer
Version:4Date:8 October 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled "Prognostic impact of immunohistochemical expression
of CK7 and CK20 in curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer" has been
adequately revised by the authors. However, some of the questions were still not
addressed.
Major Essential Revisions:
My previous comment seems not to have been addressed: "An association
analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic factors should be
presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the chi-square test,
however, the results from that are not presented other than in the Discussion."
I do not see the point with the sentence "And we did not analyze the other
immunohistochemical subtype by testing expression of MUC1, MUC2 and etc." in
the end of the Discussion. Why was this added to the current version?
Minor Essential Revisions:
The authors have now provided clone for the antibody, but still no information on
manufacturer or at what dilution they were used for immunohistochemistry. Were
the monoclonal antibodies produced in-house? What do the authors mean by
"prediluted"?
Thank you for now providing representative images for immunostainings, they
seem adequate. However, they were now all uploaded as separate figures. I
suggest that the authors provide _one_ figure with the images in four panels.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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