Reviewer's report
Title:Zinc treatment ameliorated diarrhea and intestinal inflammation in
undernourished rats
Version:2Date:9 May 2014
Reviewer: Simon Keely
Reviewer's report:
The current study by de Queiroz et al. examined zinc supplementation as a
therapeutic strategy in a rat model of diarrheal disease.
While this study is interesting a number of issues need to be addressed
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. There are no legends provided for the figures. This makes review of the
manuscript extremely difficult. Please provide legends for all figures.
2. A clear statement of the study hypothesis and aims would help the flow of the
manuscript greatly.
3. Rationale behind the experimental approach is not justified. For instance, why
look at bacteria in the spleen rather than the mesenteric lymph nodes? Why were
the cytokines chosen? Why were the specific animal models of disease used?
4. Figure 5. The western blot for villin, rows 3 and 4 appear heavily pixelated.
Were these rows pasted in? If so, these should be run on one blot. A higher
resolution image of this western should be rpovided.
5. Bednorz et al (2013 Int. J . Med Microbiol) have shown that Zinc
supplementation increases bacterial plasmid transfer and multi drug resistance in
E. coli. This should be discussed with respect to the current study.
6. With this in mind, how do the authors know that stool consistency was due to
diarrhea (water transport) as opposed to metabolic changes in the microbiome?
This could be easily addressed by assessing stool water content (wet/dry weight
ratios).
7. Why are there such varying experimental numbers between groups? n=11 vs
n=18?
8. zinc supplementation promotes growth via secretion of IGF-1 (Alves et al,
2012, J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab), which itself is protective against
enteropathies. This could be addressed in discussion.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Zinc treatment ameliorated diarrhea and intestinal inflammation in
undernourished rats
Version:2Date:9 May 2014
Reviewer: Simon Keely
Reviewer's report:
The current study by de Queiroz et al. examined zinc supplementation as a
therapeutic strategy in a rat model of diarrheal disease.
While this study is interesting a number of issues need to be addressed
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. There are no legends provided for the figures. This makes review of the
manuscript extremely difficult. Please provide legends for all figures.
2. A clear statement of the study hypothesis and aims would help the flow of the
manuscript greatly.
3. Rationale behind the experimental approach is not justified. For instance, why
look at bacteria in the spleen rather than the mesenteric lymph nodes? Why were
the cytokines chosen? Why were the specific animal models of disease used?
4. Figure 5. The western blot for villin, rows 3 and 4 appear heavily pixelated.
Were these rows pasted in? If so, these should be run on one blot. A higher
resolution image of this western should be rpovided.
5. Bednorz et al (2013 Int. J . Med Microbiol) have shown that Zinc
supplementation increases bacterial plasmid transfer and multi drug resistance in
E. coli. This should be discussed with respect to the current study.
6. With this in mind, how do the authors know that stool consistency was due to
diarrhea (water transport) as opposed to metabolic changes in the microbiome?
This could be easily addressed by assessing stool water content (wet/dry weight
ratios).
7. Why are there such varying experimental numbers between groups? n=11 vs
n=18?
8. zinc supplementation promotes growth via secretion of IGF-1 (Alves et al,
2012, J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab), which itself is protective against
enteropathies. This could be addressed in discussion.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Zinc treatment ameliorated diarrhea and intestinal inflammation in
undernourished rats
Version:2Date:9 May 2014
Reviewer: Simon Keely
Reviewer's report:
The current study by de Queiroz et al. examined zinc supplementation as a
therapeutic strategy in a rat model of diarrheal disease.
While this study is interesting a number of issues need to be addressed
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. There are no legends provided for the figures. This makes review of the
manuscript extremely difficult. Please provide legends for all figures.
2. A clear statement of the study hypothesis and aims would help the flow of the
manuscript greatly.
3. Rationale behind the experimental approach is not justified. For instance, why
look at bacteria in the spleen rather than the mesenteric lymph nodes? Why were
the cytokines chosen? Why were the specific animal models of disease used?
4. Figure 5. The western blot for villin, rows 3 and 4 appear heavily pixelated.
Were these rows pasted in? If so, these should be run on one blot. A higher
resolution image of this western should be rpovided.
5. Bednorz et al (2013 Int. J . Med Microbiol) have shown that Zinc
supplementation increases bacterial plasmid transfer and multi drug resistance in
E. coli. This should be discussed with respect to the current study.
6. With this in mind, how do the authors know that stool consistency was due to
diarrhea (water transport) as opposed to metabolic changes in the microbiome?
This could be easily addressed by assessing stool water content (wet/dry weight
ratios).
7. Why are there such varying experimental numbers between groups? n=11 vs
n=18?
8. zinc supplementation promotes growth via secretion of IGF-1 (Alves et al,
2012, J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab), which itself is protective against
enteropathies. This could be addressed in discussion.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.
assistant