Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 1Date:21 September 2007
Reviewer: Paula Chaves
Reviewer's report:
GeneralIn this interesting study the authors compare the rat MLE with the MLE
observed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) by using the expression of
transcription factors and differentiation markers. The material and methods are
well defined and clearly described and the markers used for the phenotypic
assessment of MLE are appropriate for the purpose of the study and correctly
detailed in Table 1. The results are clearly described and illustrated by pictures of
good quality and well summarized in Table 2. In the discussion the authors
analyze the phenotypic similarities of rat and human MLE and discuss the data
considering the biological events that may underlying the control and
development of this type of epithelium. The discussion is well organized and the
conclusions are well supported by the results. Nevertheless, some Minor
Essential and some Discretionary Revisions must be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Nothing to state
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
a. On page 9, line 2, CLE must be replaced by BE. The presence of IM in the
esophagus is, like the authors define on page 6, the morphologic criteria for the
definition of Barrett’s esophagus.
b. On page 10, line13, Fig 2G is cited as the expression of Muc2, but Villin is the
legend on Fig2G.
c. The imunoexpression is well documented by pictures of good quality but Fig 2
is not friendly. In the same line there are images from HNF1# in rat and from
Muc2 in human. In the Fig 2 legend the imunoexpression of intestinal markers is
cited but, according to the authors the pictures of these markers in rat or human
squamous epithelium are not shown (page 10 line 10).
d. On page 14, line 12; metplasia must be replaced by metaplasia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
a. The title could be improved by suggesting the similarities between the two
epithelia (rat and human MLE).
b. On page 4 line 15, the idea is more correctly expressed by replacing “the
mechanism of IM” by “the mechanism underling the development of IM”.
c. On page 9, line 9, it is not necessary to say that “human samples all contained
MLE”. This is on the methods as inclusion criteria.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 1Date:21 September 2007
Reviewer: Paula Chaves
Reviewer's report:
GeneralIn this interesting study the authors compare the rat MLE with the MLE
observed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) by using the expression of
transcription factors and differentiation markers. The material and methods are
well defined and clearly described and the markers used for the phenotypic
assessment of MLE are appropriate for the purpose of the study and correctly
detailed in Table 1. The results are clearly described and illustrated by pictures of
good quality and well summarized in Table 2. In the discussion the authors
analyze the phenotypic similarities of rat and human MLE and discuss the data
considering the biological events that may underlying the control and
development of this type of epithelium. The discussion is well organized and the
conclusions are well supported by the results. Nevertheless, some Minor
Essential and some Discretionary Revisions must be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Nothing to state
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
a. On page 9, line 2, CLE must be replaced by BE. The presence of IM in the
esophagus is, like the authors define on page 6, the morphologic criteria for the
definition of Barrett’s esophagus.
b. On page 10, line13, Fig 2G is cited as the expression of Muc2, but Villin is the
legend on Fig2G.
c. The imunoexpression is well documented by pictures of good quality but Fig 2
is not friendly. In the same line there are images from HNF1# in rat and from
Muc2 in human. In the Fig 2 legend the imunoexpression of intestinal markers is
cited but, according to the authors the pictures of these markers in rat or human
squamous epithelium are not shown (page 10 line 10).
d. On page 14, line 12; metplasia must be replaced by metaplasia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
a. The title could be improved by suggesting the similarities between the two
epithelia (rat and human MLE).
b. On page 4 line 15, the idea is more correctly expressed by replacing “the
mechanism of IM” by “the mechanism underling the development of IM”.
c. On page 9, line 9, it is not necessary to say that “human samples all contained
MLE”. This is on the methods as inclusion criteria.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 below.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 1Date:21 September 2007
Reviewer: Paula Chaves
Reviewer's report:
GeneralIn this interesting study the authors compare the rat MLE with the MLE
observed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) by using the expression of
transcription factors and differentiation markers. The material and methods are
well defined and clearly described and the markers used for the phenotypic
assessment of MLE are appropriate for the purpose of the study and correctly
detailed in Table 1. The results are clearly described and illustrated by pictures of
good quality and well summarized in Table 2. In the discussion the authors
analyze the phenotypic similarities of rat and human MLE and discuss the data
considering the biological events that may underlying the control and
development of this type of epithelium. The discussion is well organized and the
conclusions are well supported by the results. Nevertheless, some Minor
Essential and some Discretionary Revisions must be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Nothing to state
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
a. On page 9, line 2, CLE must be replaced by BE. The presence of IM in the
esophagus is, like the authors define on page 6, the morphologic criteria for the
definition of Barrett’s esophagus.
b. On page 10, line13, Fig 2G is cited as the expression of Muc2, but Villin is the
legend on Fig2G.
c. The imunoexpression is well documented by pictures of good quality but Fig 2
is not friendly. In the same line there are images from HNF1# in rat and from
Muc2 in human. In the Fig 2 legend the imunoexpression of intestinal markers is
cited but, according to the authors the pictures of these markers in rat or human
squamous epithelium are not shown (page 10 line 10).
d. On page 14, line 12; metplasia must be replaced by metaplasia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
a. The title could be improved by suggesting the similarities between the two
epithelia (rat and human MLE).
b. On page 4 line 15, the idea is more correctly expressed by replacing “the
mechanism of IM” by “the mechanism underling the development of IM”.
c. On page 9, line 9, it is not necessary to say that “human samples all contained
MLE”. This is on the methods as inclusion criteria.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 below.
assistant