Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The HO -1-expressing bone mesenchymal stem cells protects intestine from ischemia and  
reperfusion injury  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Murat Kapan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The effect of the BMSCs ve BMSCS/HO -1 on mice without ischemia damage has not been 
investigated.  
 
The abbreviations used in the abstract are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
Introduction is adequate and descriptive  
 
Some abbreviation, like PBS, are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
The measurements to the groups are not illustrative. Al though the number of animals in each 
group was ten, but analyses were not made in all animals. Some measurements were made at 24 
hours. Some of them were evaluated on the 7th day. But none of them is detailed in the method 
section. This leads to confusion in the results section.  
 
Nomenclature of the groups in the figures and in the study are different. This leads to confusion  
 
In the discussion part, the effect of the HO -1 has not been sufficiently studied.  
 
Each figure must be self -explanatory. The figures we re too confused.  
 
Good work. But its design is complicated and makes it difficult to understand.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary  controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any stati stics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acces s Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The HO -1-expressing bone mesenchymal stem cells protects intestine from ischemia and  
reperfusion injury  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Murat Kapan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The effect of the BMSCs ve BMSCS/HO -1 on mice without ischemia damage has not been 
investigated.  
 
The abbreviations used in the abstract are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
Introduction is adequate and descriptive  
 
Some abbreviation, like PBS, are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
The measurements to the groups are not illustrative. Al though the number of animals in each 
group was ten, but analyses were not made in all animals. Some measurements were made at 24 
hours. Some of them were evaluated on the 7th day. But none of them is detailed in the method 
section. This leads to confusion in the results section.  
 
Nomenclature of the groups in the figures and in the study are different. This leads to confusion  
 
In the discussion part, the effect of the HO -1 has not been sufficiently studied.  
 
Each figure must be self -explanatory. The figures we re too confused.  
 
Good work. But its design is complicated and makes it difficult to understand.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary  controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any stati stics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acces s Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The HO -1-expressing bone mesenchymal stem cells protects intestine from ischemia and  
reperfusion injury  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Murat Kapan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The effect of the BMSCs ve BMSCS/HO -1 on mice without ischemia damage has not been 
investigated.  
 
The abbreviations used in the abstract are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
Introduction is adequate and descriptive  
 
Some abbreviation, like PBS, are not disclosed where they were first used.  
 
The measurements to the groups are not illustrative. Al though the number of animals in each 
group was ten, but analyses were not made in all animals. Some measurements were made at 24 
hours. Some of them were evaluated on the 7th day. But none of them is detailed in the method 
section. This leads to confusion in the results section.  
 
Nomenclature of the groups in the figures and in the study are different. This leads to confusion  
 
In the discussion part, the effect of the HO -1 has not been sufficiently studied.  
 
Each figure must be self -explanatory. The figures we re too confused.  
 
Good work. But its design is complicated and makes it difficult to understand.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary  controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any stati stics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acces s Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant