Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of binding to its cellular Title: 
receptor 
 1  6 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Roser Lopez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors present a well-written and well-documented study analysing the role of urokinase type 
plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in liver regeneration after an acute injury, in an in vivo model. 
Impaired liver regeneration in uPA and plasminogen deficient mice have been reported. Due to the 
described importance of uPAR in concentrating the plasminogen activation in cell surface, the authors study 
in this work that binding of uPA to its receptor uPAR would be required for correct liver regeneration. 
The results show convincingly that liver regeneration takes place correctly in uPAR deficient mice, alone or 
combined with tPA deficiency, when compared to uPA deficient mice impaired liver regeneration. 
The work is well done, the conclussions are well suported by the data and the results are convincing. I 
therefore recommend the publication of the mannuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
1. Plg is often used along the text as abbreviation for plasminogen, but it is never defined in the text. 
2. Labelling to figure 6 is confusing, instead of indicating proteins expressed in each case, authors should 
notate each genotype (wt, uPAÂº, uPARÂº or uPARÂº/tPAÂº), as in all the other figures. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of binding to its cellular Title: 
receptor 
 1  6 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Roser Lopez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors present a well-written and well-documented study analysing the role of urokinase type 
plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in liver regeneration after an acute injury, in an in vivo model. 
Impaired liver regeneration in uPA and plasminogen deficient mice have been reported. Due to the 
described importance of uPAR in concentrating the plasminogen activation in cell surface, the authors study 
in this work that binding of uPA to its receptor uPAR would be required for correct liver regeneration. 
The results show convincingly that liver regeneration takes place correctly in uPAR deficient mice, alone or 
combined with tPA deficiency, when compared to uPA deficient mice impaired liver regeneration. 
The work is well done, the conclussions are well suported by the data and the results are convincing. I 
therefore recommend the publication of the mannuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
1. Plg is often used along the text as abbreviation for plasminogen, but it is never defined in the text. 
2. Labelling to figure 6 is confusing, instead of indicating proteins expressed in each case, authors should 
notate each genotype (wt, uPAÂº, uPARÂº or uPARÂº/tPAÂº), as in all the other figures. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of binding to its cellular Title: 
receptor 
 1  6 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Roser Lopez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors present a well-written and well-documented study analysing the role of urokinase type 
plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in liver regeneration after an acute injury, in an in vivo model. 
Impaired liver regeneration in uPA and plasminogen deficient mice have been reported. Due to the 
described importance of uPAR in concentrating the plasminogen activation in cell surface, the authors study 
in this work that binding of uPA to its receptor uPAR would be required for correct liver regeneration. 
The results show convincingly that liver regeneration takes place correctly in uPAR deficient mice, alone or 
combined with tPA deficiency, when compared to uPA deficient mice impaired liver regeneration. 
The work is well done, the conclussions are well suported by the data and the results are convincing. I 
therefore recommend the publication of the mannuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
1. Plg is often used along the text as abbreviation for plasminogen, but it is never defined in the text. 
2. Labelling to figure 6 is confusing, instead of indicating proteins expressed in each case, authors should 
notate each genotype (wt, uPAÂº, uPARÂº or uPARÂº/tPAÂº), as in all the other figures. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant