Reviewer's report
Title:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version:2Date:22 October 2013
Reviewer: Uta Dahmen
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. Apparently there is some confusion regarding the description of the
experimental design in terms of the dose of treatment in the control groups and
the frequency of postoperative treatment. Original manuscript, point-to-point
response and revised manuscript give different informations.
In the current version, the dose of saline in the control group was changed from
3ml/kg to 10ml/kg. Interestingly, in the point-to-point response, the dose of 5ml is
further explained.
The number of treatments with hydrogen was changed from pre- and up to four
applications postoperatively to a single application preoperatively.
Here clarification is needed.
2. Critical reassessment of the experimental design reveals that two control
groups were performed which did not add any additional insight.
The added value of an I/R group without any treatment in addition to an I/R group
treated with saline remains unclear. The sham group and the I/R was sacrificed
at 2h, which represents an early (and irrelevant) time point after injury since
injury did not yet manifest in the tested parameters. Therefore either all
observations points should have been tested or at least 12h, the time point where
highest injury would be expected and was actually observed
Further explanation regarding the selection of control groups would possibly help.
3. Substantial parts of the reviewers concerns were not addressed, but rejected,
e.g. HMGB-staining should be present in the nuclei of normal hepatocytes as
also stated by the authors. However, in their hands, normal hepatocytes
respectively sham operated animals do not present with any positive signals. The
lack of signal in the normal heptocytes deserves further attention.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version:2Date:22 October 2013
Reviewer: Uta Dahmen
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. Apparently there is some confusion regarding the description of the
experimental design in terms of the dose of treatment in the control groups and
the frequency of postoperative treatment. Original manuscript, point-to-point
response and revised manuscript give different informations.
In the current version, the dose of saline in the control group was changed from
3ml/kg to 10ml/kg. Interestingly, in the point-to-point response, the dose of 5ml is
further explained.
The number of treatments with hydrogen was changed from pre- and up to four
applications postoperatively to a single application preoperatively.
Here clarification is needed.
2. Critical reassessment of the experimental design reveals that two control
groups were performed which did not add any additional insight.
The added value of an I/R group without any treatment in addition to an I/R group
treated with saline remains unclear. The sham group and the I/R was sacrificed
at 2h, which represents an early (and irrelevant) time point after injury since
injury did not yet manifest in the tested parameters. Therefore either all
observations points should have been tested or at least 12h, the time point where
highest injury would be expected and was actually observed
Further explanation regarding the selection of control groups would possibly help.
3. Substantial parts of the reviewers concerns were not addressed, but rejected,
e.g. HMGB-staining should be present in the nuclei of normal hepatocytes as
also stated by the authors. However, in their hands, normal hepatocytes
respectively sham operated animals do not present with any positive signals. The
lack of signal in the normal heptocytes deserves further attention.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Protective effects of hydrogen enriched saline on liver ischemia reperfusion
injury by reducing oxidative stress and HMGB1 release
Version:2Date:22 October 2013
Reviewer: Uta Dahmen
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. Apparently there is some confusion regarding the description of the
experimental design in terms of the dose of treatment in the control groups and
the frequency of postoperative treatment. Original manuscript, point-to-point
response and revised manuscript give different informations.
In the current version, the dose of saline in the control group was changed from
3ml/kg to 10ml/kg. Interestingly, in the point-to-point response, the dose of 5ml is
further explained.
The number of treatments with hydrogen was changed from pre- and up to four
applications postoperatively to a single application preoperatively.
Here clarification is needed.
2. Critical reassessment of the experimental design reveals that two control
groups were performed which did not add any additional insight.
The added value of an I/R group without any treatment in addition to an I/R group
treated with saline remains unclear. The sham group and the I/R was sacrificed
at 2h, which represents an early (and irrelevant) time point after injury since
injury did not yet manifest in the tested parameters. Therefore either all
observations points should have been tested or at least 12h, the time point where
highest injury would be expected and was actually observed
Further explanation regarding the selection of control groups would possibly help.
3. Substantial parts of the reviewers concerns were not addressed, but rejected,
e.g. HMGB-staining should be present in the nuclei of normal hepatocytes as
also stated by the authors. However, in their hands, normal hepatocytes
respectively sham operated animals do not present with any positive signals. The
lack of signal in the normal heptocytes deserves further attention.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant