Reviewer's report 
 Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis Title: 
 1  10 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Tomasz Tyrakowski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The article addresses the problem if in colonic diverticular disease the generalized transepithelial ion 
transport dysfunction is present. The question, important for current understanding of the mechanism of the disease, is clearly formulated and negatively answered after careful study so the paper deserves for publication. The additional good point is that the specimens are human biopsy material so the conclusions 
are undoubtedly important for clinic. 
The method is based on modified Ussing apparatus which is appropriate for studies of transepithelial 
electrophysiological phenomena. The application of different substances of known pharmacological activity 
is adequate test for analyzing of functional competence of studied tissues. 
The data were carefully measured with application of different experimental controls – particularly important 
are those for damage during biopsy and for stability of measured parameters. The data clearly showed the 
range of local variations of electrical parameters what is usually neglected in experimental studies on 
animals. 
The manuscript adheres without exceptions to the accepted standards of reporting of clinical data. 
The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and are supported by the data. 
The title is in my opinion too far reaching as many specific epithelial receptors/regulatory processes were 
not tested, of course serotoninergic, muscarinic, intracellular activatory mechanism and electrogenic 
transport pathways were shown not affected in the disease. 
The manuscript is written in plain style which stressed the understanding of important problems so the 
writing (according to my non professional linguist’s opinion) is acceptable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
There are many repeated items in the References (7, 28, 30; 8-11, 13, 24, 57; 14, 19, 31; 15, 20; 16, 21; 17, 23; 18, 38, 42). Page 5, lines 1 and 2 from below is “…transport capacity. For amiloride it was 
added…” should be: “…transport capacity with exception for amiloride added…” 
Pages 8, line 4 and others from above: “t1/2” not defined in Method, and in List of abbreviations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The question of heterogeneity of epithelial function in diverticular disease, especially differences between apparently normal tissue and the one in the region of diverticulum should be shortly commented by authors. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis Title: 
 1  10 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Tomasz Tyrakowski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The article addresses the problem if in colonic diverticular disease the generalized transepithelial ion 
transport dysfunction is present. The question, important for current understanding of the mechanism of the disease, is clearly formulated and negatively answered after careful study so the paper deserves for publication. The additional good point is that the specimens are human biopsy material so the conclusions 
are undoubtedly important for clinic. 
The method is based on modified Ussing apparatus which is appropriate for studies of transepithelial 
electrophysiological phenomena. The application of different substances of known pharmacological activity 
is adequate test for analyzing of functional competence of studied tissues. 
The data were carefully measured with application of different experimental controls – particularly important 
are those for damage during biopsy and for stability of measured parameters. The data clearly showed the 
range of local variations of electrical parameters what is usually neglected in experimental studies on 
animals. 
The manuscript adheres without exceptions to the accepted standards of reporting of clinical data. 
The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and are supported by the data. 
The title is in my opinion too far reaching as many specific epithelial receptors/regulatory processes were 
not tested, of course serotoninergic, muscarinic, intracellular activatory mechanism and electrogenic 
transport pathways were shown not affected in the disease. 
The manuscript is written in plain style which stressed the understanding of important problems so the 
writing (according to my non professional linguist’s opinion) is acceptable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
There are many repeated items in the References (7, 28, 30; 8-11, 13, 24, 57; 14, 19, 31; 15, 20; 16, 21; 17, 23; 18, 38, 42). Page 5, lines 1 and 2 from below is “…transport capacity. For amiloride it was 
added…” should be: “…transport capacity with exception for amiloride added…” 
Pages 8, line 4 and others from above: “t1/2” not defined in Method, and in List of abbreviations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The question of heterogeneity of epithelial function in diverticular disease, especially differences between apparently normal tissue and the one in the region of diverticulum should be shortly commented by authors. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis Title: 
 1  10 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Tomasz Tyrakowski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The article addresses the problem if in colonic diverticular disease the generalized transepithelial ion 
transport dysfunction is present. The question, important for current understanding of the mechanism of the disease, is clearly formulated and negatively answered after careful study so the paper deserves for publication. The additional good point is that the specimens are human biopsy material so the conclusions 
are undoubtedly important for clinic. 
The method is based on modified Ussing apparatus which is appropriate for studies of transepithelial 
electrophysiological phenomena. The application of different substances of known pharmacological activity 
is adequate test for analyzing of functional competence of studied tissues. 
The data were carefully measured with application of different experimental controls – particularly important 
are those for damage during biopsy and for stability of measured parameters. The data clearly showed the 
range of local variations of electrical parameters what is usually neglected in experimental studies on 
animals. 
The manuscript adheres without exceptions to the accepted standards of reporting of clinical data. 
The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and are supported by the data. 
The title is in my opinion too far reaching as many specific epithelial receptors/regulatory processes were 
not tested, of course serotoninergic, muscarinic, intracellular activatory mechanism and electrogenic 
transport pathways were shown not affected in the disease. 
The manuscript is written in plain style which stressed the understanding of important problems so the 
writing (according to my non professional linguist’s opinion) is acceptable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
There are many repeated items in the References (7, 28, 30; 8-11, 13, 24, 57; 14, 19, 31; 15, 20; 16, 21; 17, 23; 18, 38, 42). Page 5, lines 1 and 2 from below is “…transport capacity. For amiloride it was 
added…” should be: “…transport capacity with exception for amiloride added…” 
Pages 8, line 4 and others from above: “t1/2” not defined in Method, and in List of abbreviations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The question of heterogeneity of epithelial function in diverticular disease, especially differences between apparently normal tissue and the one in the region of diverticulum should be shortly commented by authors. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant