Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:2 April 2013
Reviewer: Alexandra Meziti
Reviewer's report:
Point1. The tables mentioned in the manuscript are missing from what was sent
to us. I guess they are the same tables with the previous versions but still they
need to be included again.
Point 2. P.8-l.3. How many times did you perform DGGE? You excised bands
from the lactobacilli community and you performed DGGE again? Are you sure?
Either you did something wrong, or you wrote something wrong.
Point 3. It is necessary that you present genbank numbers of your sequences in
order to have your study published.
Point 4. P.9-l.14. How do you suggest this 70%? I cannot see that from figure 1.
Point 5.p.9-l.19-28. A big change in the figure is indicated from the band you did
not manage to sequence finally. Did you sequence four or three bands after all?
You write four but you have results for three and then again four bands in figure
legend where lac 1 for L. acidophilus appears. Apart from that the legend of the
figure is not correct, since it is the same with the previous manuscript.
Point 6. At least from the molecular data, I do not think that you can conclude the
beneficial effect of L.acidophilus. You have shifts in the lactobacilli community but
it is not certain that this is driven from the addition of the strain.
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:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:2 April 2013
Reviewer: Alexandra Meziti
Reviewer's report:
Point1. The tables mentioned in the manuscript are missing from what was sent
to us. I guess they are the same tables with the previous versions but still they
need to be included again.
Point 2. P.8-l.3. How many times did you perform DGGE? You excised bands
from the lactobacilli community and you performed DGGE again? Are you sure?
Either you did something wrong, or you wrote something wrong.
Point 3. It is necessary that you present genbank numbers of your sequences in
order to have your study published.
Point 4. P.9-l.14. How do you suggest this 70%? I cannot see that from figure 1.
Point 5.p.9-l.19-28. A big change in the figure is indicated from the band you did
not manage to sequence finally. Did you sequence four or three bands after all?
You write four but you have results for three and then again four bands in figure
legend where lac 1 for L. acidophilus appears. Apart from that the legend of the
figure is not correct, since it is the same with the previous manuscript.
Point 6. At least from the molecular data, I do not think that you can conclude the
beneficial effect of L.acidophilus. You have shifts in the lactobacilli community but
it is not certain that this is driven from the addition of the strain.
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:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:2 April 2013
Reviewer: Alexandra Meziti
Reviewer's report:
Point1. The tables mentioned in the manuscript are missing from what was sent
to us. I guess they are the same tables with the previous versions but still they
need to be included again.
Point 2. P.8-l.3. How many times did you perform DGGE? You excised bands
from the lactobacilli community and you performed DGGE again? Are you sure?
Either you did something wrong, or you wrote something wrong.
Point 3. It is necessary that you present genbank numbers of your sequences in
order to have your study published.
Point 4. P.9-l.14. How do you suggest this 70%? I cannot see that from figure 1.
Point 5.p.9-l.19-28. A big change in the figure is indicated from the band you did
not manage to sequence finally. Did you sequence four or three bands after all?
You write four but you have results for three and then again four bands in figure
legend where lac 1 for L. acidophilus appears. Apart from that the legend of the
figure is not correct, since it is the same with the previous manuscript.
Point 6. At least from the molecular data, I do not think that you can conclude the
beneficial effect of L.acidophilus. You have shifts in the lactobacilli community but
it is not certain that this is driven from the addition of the strain.
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