Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Fecal microbiota composition is linked to the postoperative disease course in patients with  
Crohn’s disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Tauqeer Alam  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
The manuscript from Strömbeck et al looks promising. The observations are clear where the y 
show that healthy subjects and CD subjects are making groups on the basis of microbial 
composition.  Further, they also show that within CD subjects, samples are grouped by remission 
and relapse after 1 year. The overall conclusion and discussion look fi ne.  
 
I have some comments:  
 
The quality of the figures is very poor. In some cases it is unreadable. For ex in Fig 1B, I don't 
know what is written below the figure. The X -axis label is not readable and the Y -axis label is 
missing. It does look like a grouping I guess but please make  it clear. Similarly, in Fig 1C, I cant 
read y -axis label. Almost all figures need revision.  
 
In the results section (referring to Fig 1B), the authors mention: "As determined by OPLS -DA, 
the most important bacteria for discrimination between the groups w ere Bacteroides 
pectinophilus, Alistipes onderdonkii, Coprabacillus cateniformis and Alistipes".  To me, most of 
the bacteria looking similar. Although the above -mentioned bacteria may be on the top but 
compared to other bacteria from the barplot they are not that different. I suggest rephrasing this 
statement in a way that it should reflect that other bacteria in the barplot are equally important.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comme nts to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently 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 competing interest  
 
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 w ill be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access 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: Fecal microbiota composition is linked to the postoperative disease course in patients with  
Crohn’s disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Tauqeer Alam  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
The manuscript from Strömbeck et al looks promising. The observations are clear where the y 
show that healthy subjects and CD subjects are making groups on the basis of microbial 
composition.  Further, they also show that within CD subjects, samples are grouped by remission 
and relapse after 1 year. The overall conclusion and discussion look fi ne.  
 
I have some comments:  
 
The quality of the figures is very poor. In some cases it is unreadable. For ex in Fig 1B, I don't 
know what is written below the figure. The X -axis label is not readable and the Y -axis label is 
missing. It does look like a grouping I guess but please make  it clear. Similarly, in Fig 1C, I cant 
read y -axis label. Almost all figures need revision.  
 
In the results section (referring to Fig 1B), the authors mention: "As determined by OPLS -DA, 
the most important bacteria for discrimination between the groups w ere Bacteroides 
pectinophilus, Alistipes onderdonkii, Coprabacillus cateniformis and Alistipes".  To me, most of 
the bacteria looking similar. Although the above -mentioned bacteria may be on the top but 
compared to other bacteria from the barplot they are not that different. I suggest rephrasing this 
statement in a way that it should reflect that other bacteria in the barplot are equally important.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comme nts to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently 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 competing interest  
 
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 w ill be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access 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: Fecal microbiota composition is linked to the postoperative disease course in patients with  
Crohn’s disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Tauqeer Alam  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
The manuscript from Strömbeck et al looks promising. The observations are clear where the y 
show that healthy subjects and CD subjects are making groups on the basis of microbial 
composition.  Further, they also show that within CD subjects, samples are grouped by remission 
and relapse after 1 year. The overall conclusion and discussion look fi ne.  
 
I have some comments:  
 
The quality of the figures is very poor. In some cases it is unreadable. For ex in Fig 1B, I don't 
know what is written below the figure. The X -axis label is not readable and the Y -axis label is 
missing. It does look like a grouping I guess but please make  it clear. Similarly, in Fig 1C, I cant 
read y -axis label. Almost all figures need revision.  
 
In the results section (referring to Fig 1B), the authors mention: "As determined by OPLS -DA, 
the most important bacteria for discrimination between the groups w ere Bacteroides 
pectinophilus, Alistipes onderdonkii, Coprabacillus cateniformis and Alistipes".  To me, most of 
the bacteria looking similar. Although the above -mentioned bacteria may be on the top but 
compared to other bacteria from the barplot they are not that different. I suggest rephrasing this 
statement in a way that it should reflect that other bacteria in the barplot are equally important.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comme nts to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently 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 competing interest  
 
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 w ill be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access 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