Title: Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8 rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among
Taiwanese men and women
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Markku Nissinen
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Keng-Wei Liang et al., entitled Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8
rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among Taiwanese men and women reports results
of a large population-based study, which aims to assess the risk of gallstones according to
ABCG8 rs11887534 polymorphism by taking several physiological aspects and putative risk
factors into consideration.
Their data is represented clearly in five large Tables. They have several findings, including the
fact that age, family history, total bilirubin, ALT, and HDL each had a significant association
with gallstones irrespective of sex and hormone use habit. Furthermore, they found that the
highest odds ratio for gallstone was among female hormone users carrying the GC+CC genotype,
implying that the role of rs11887534 in gallstones might be more prominent in women with the
strongest effect in hormone users.
I have some comments:
1) The results section of the Abstract: The sentence starting " The rs11887534 GC+CC genotype
compared....", I find it a little tangled. Could it be made more reader friendly?
2) The first sentence in the Discussion "Gallstones are the main cause of biliary tract cancer".
Could the authors open this slightly strict statement somehow? In the Western world, the
gallstones are operated only if they cause symptoms.  Symptomless gallstones are not operated.
Thus, the risk of biliary tract cancer is not considered significant in the presence of gallstones.
Could the authors comment this issue; is there a big difference in the cancer risk between
different ethnic groups (Europe versus Taiwan) or is the overall risk of biliary tract cancer in
the presence of gallstones very low and, thus, it is not considered an indication for operative
treatment?
3) Discussion, page 11, the first Para: "...leading to cholesterol saturation in the liver". The
authors probably mean cholesterol saturation in the biliary fluid?
Title: Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8 rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among
Taiwanese men and women
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Markku Nissinen
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Keng-Wei Liang et al., entitled Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8
rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among Taiwanese men and women reports results
of a large population-based study, which aims to assess the risk of gallstones according to
ABCG8 rs11887534 polymorphism by taking several physiological aspects and putative risk
factors into consideration.
Their data is represented clearly in five large Tables. They have several findings, including the
fact that age, family history, total bilirubin, ALT, and HDL each had a significant association
with gallstones irrespective of sex and hormone use habit. Furthermore, they found that the
highest odds ratio for gallstone was among female hormone users carrying the GC+CC genotype,
implying that the role of rs11887534 in gallstones might be more prominent in women with the
strongest effect in hormone users.
I have some comments:
1) The results section of the Abstract: The sentence starting " The rs11887534 GC+CC genotype
compared....", I find it a little tangled. Could it be made more reader friendly?
2) The first sentence in the Discussion "Gallstones are the main cause of biliary tract cancer".
Could the authors open this slightly strict statement somehow? In the Western world, the
gallstones are operated only if they cause symptoms.  Symptomless gallstones are not operated.
Thus, the risk of biliary tract cancer is not considered significant in the presence of gallstones.
Could the authors comment this issue; is there a big difference in the cancer risk between
different ethnic groups (Europe versus Taiwan) or is the overall risk of biliary tract cancer in
the presence of gallstones very low and, thus, it is not considered an indication for operative
treatment?
3) Discussion, page 11, the first Para: "...leading to cholesterol saturation in the liver". The
authors probably mean cholesterol saturation in the biliary fluid?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8 rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among
Taiwanese men and women
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Markku Nissinen
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Keng-Wei Liang et al., entitled Risk of gallstones based on ABCG8
rs11887534 single nucleotide polymorphism among Taiwanese men and women reports results
of a large population-based study, which aims to assess the risk of gallstones according to
ABCG8 rs11887534 polymorphism by taking several physiological aspects and putative risk
factors into consideration.
Their data is represented clearly in five large Tables. They have several findings, including the
fact that age, family history, total bilirubin, ALT, and HDL each had a significant association
with gallstones irrespective of sex and hormone use habit. Furthermore, they found that the
highest odds ratio for gallstone was among female hormone users carrying the GC+CC genotype,
implying that the role of rs11887534 in gallstones might be more prominent in women with the
strongest effect in hormone users.
I have some comments:
1) The results section of the Abstract: The sentence starting " The rs11887534 GC+CC genotype
compared....", I find it a little tangled. Could it be made more reader friendly?
2) The first sentence in the Discussion "Gallstones are the main cause of biliary tract cancer".
Could the authors open this slightly strict statement somehow? In the Western world, the
gallstones are operated only if they cause symptoms.  Symptomless gallstones are not operated.
Thus, the risk of biliary tract cancer is not considered significant in the presence of gallstones.
Could the authors comment this issue; is there a big difference in the cancer risk between
different ethnic groups (Europe versus Taiwan) or is the overall risk of biliary tract cancer in
the presence of gallstones very low and, thus, it is not considered an indication for operative
treatment?
3) Discussion, page 11, the first Para: "...leading to cholesterol saturation in the liver". The
authors probably mean cholesterol saturation in the biliary fluid?
assistant