Reviewer's report 
 Oxidised and reduced glutathione and related thiols in human gallbladder bile. Title: 
 1  20 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiorella Piemonte Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this study Peters et al. measure some important thiols in human galdbladder bile. In my opinion some 
major criticism can be moved to the manuscript. 
1. The question posed could be interesting but it is not clear if the aim of the study is to analyze the 
oxidative status of the bile, or its thiol composition in physio-pathological conditions. 
2. The references cited are not updated and, consequently, the Introduction and Discussion sections appear poor and not sufficiently in-depth. 3. The Methods appear confuse and it is omitted the kind of column and the detection system used for 
HPLC studies 
4. The data often show a SD higher than the mean reported. Probably, it is not correct to group together patients with different diseases. Even the age range is too much large for having reliable results. 5. Regarding glutathione measurements, should be important to analyze all the forms of glutathione in 
galdbladder bile, including protein-bound glutathione, given the growing importance of this form as a marker 
of oxidative stress. 
6. Even the nomenclature is not much accurate: glutathione is GSH (not GLU), its oxidized form is GSSG (not oGLU). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Oxidised and reduced glutathione and related thiols in human gallbladder bile. Title: 
 1  20 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiorella Piemonte Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this study Peters et al. measure some important thiols in human galdbladder bile. In my opinion some 
major criticism can be moved to the manuscript. 
1. The question posed could be interesting but it is not clear if the aim of the study is to analyze the 
oxidative status of the bile, or its thiol composition in physio-pathological conditions. 
2. The references cited are not updated and, consequently, the Introduction and Discussion sections appear poor and not sufficiently in-depth. 3. The Methods appear confuse and it is omitted the kind of column and the detection system used for 
HPLC studies 
4. The data often show a SD higher than the mean reported. Probably, it is not correct to group together patients with different diseases. Even the age range is too much large for having reliable results. 5. Regarding glutathione measurements, should be important to analyze all the forms of glutathione in 
galdbladder bile, including protein-bound glutathione, given the growing importance of this form as a marker 
of oxidative stress. 
6. Even the nomenclature is not much accurate: glutathione is GSH (not GLU), its oxidized form is GSSG (not oGLU). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Oxidised and reduced glutathione and related thiols in human gallbladder bile. Title: 
 1  20 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiorella Piemonte Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this study Peters et al. measure some important thiols in human galdbladder bile. In my opinion some 
major criticism can be moved to the manuscript. 
1. The question posed could be interesting but it is not clear if the aim of the study is to analyze the 
oxidative status of the bile, or its thiol composition in physio-pathological conditions. 
2. The references cited are not updated and, consequently, the Introduction and Discussion sections appear poor and not sufficiently in-depth. 3. The Methods appear confuse and it is omitted the kind of column and the detection system used for 
HPLC studies 
4. The data often show a SD higher than the mean reported. Probably, it is not correct to group together patients with different diseases. Even the age range is too much large for having reliable results. 5. Regarding glutathione measurements, should be important to analyze all the forms of glutathione in 
galdbladder bile, including protein-bound glutathione, given the growing importance of this form as a marker 
of oxidative stress. 
6. Even the nomenclature is not much accurate: glutathione is GSH (not GLU), its oxidized form is GSSG (not oGLU). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant