Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The HO -1-expressing bone mesenchymal stem cells protects intestine from ischemia and  
reperfusion injury  
 
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Kaatje Lenaerts  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Abstract:  
- Last sentence states "Administration of BMSC/HO -1 following intestinal I/R, significan tly 
improved survival by limiting intestinal damage and inflammation". This study is not 
investigating a causal role between survival and tissue injury and inflammation; hence this 
conclusion cannot be drawn.  
 
General:  
- The manuscript still contains a lot  of grammatical errors together with incorrect use of 
scientific English.  
 
Introduction.  
- Last sentence should also include the condition to which BMSC/HO -1 is compared.  
 
Materials & Methods:  
- Page 4, lines 37/38. "Mice BMSC more than generation 10 were  used…" Not clear what is 
meant.  
- Not reported on page 6 how many mice were allocated per group. It should also be reported 
that, per group, 10 mice per group were used for 7 -day survival analysis and 10 mice per group 
for other assays at 24h after reperf usion.  
- Page 6, lines 43 -44. "After modeling, the activities and the death time of experimental mice 
were recorded daily." What is meant with "modeling"? How was activity recorded?  
- Statistical analysis: It is mentioned that "Small intestinal injury scor e evaluation was completed 
by repeated -measures ANOVA". Why did the authors choose to perform a repeated measures 
analysis? Were injury scores measured over time?  
Results:  
- Description of results is not clear. When reporting a significant difference, always the condition 
to which is compared should be mentioned.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
N/A 
 
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: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Kaatje Lenaerts  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Abstract:  
- Last sentence states "Administration of BMSC/HO -1 following intestinal I/R, significan tly 
improved survival by limiting intestinal damage and inflammation". This study is not 
investigating a causal role between survival and tissue injury and inflammation; hence this 
conclusion cannot be drawn.  
 
General:  
- The manuscript still contains a lot  of grammatical errors together with incorrect use of 
scientific English.  
 
Introduction.  
- Last sentence should also include the condition to which BMSC/HO -1 is compared.  
 
Materials & Methods:  
- Page 4, lines 37/38. "Mice BMSC more than generation 10 were  used…" Not clear what is 
meant.  
- Not reported on page 6 how many mice were allocated per group. It should also be reported 
that, per group, 10 mice per group were used for 7 -day survival analysis and 10 mice per group 
for other assays at 24h after reperf usion.  
- Page 6, lines 43 -44. "After modeling, the activities and the death time of experimental mice 
were recorded daily." What is meant with "modeling"? How was activity recorded?  
- Statistical analysis: It is mentioned that "Small intestinal injury scor e evaluation was completed 
by repeated -measures ANOVA". Why did the authors choose to perform a repeated measures 
analysis? Were injury scores measured over time?  
Results:  
- Description of results is not clear. When reporting a significant difference, always the condition 
to which is compared should be mentioned.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
N/A 
 
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: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Kaatje Lenaerts  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Abstract:  
- Last sentence states "Administration of BMSC/HO -1 following intestinal I/R, significan tly 
improved survival by limiting intestinal damage and inflammation". This study is not 
investigating a causal role between survival and tissue injury and inflammation; hence this 
conclusion cannot be drawn.  
 
General:  
- The manuscript still contains a lot  of grammatical errors together with incorrect use of 
scientific English.  
 
Introduction.  
- Last sentence should also include the condition to which BMSC/HO -1 is compared.  
 
Materials & Methods:  
- Page 4, lines 37/38. "Mice BMSC more than generation 10 were  used…" Not clear what is 
meant.  
- Not reported on page 6 how many mice were allocated per group. It should also be reported 
that, per group, 10 mice per group were used for 7 -day survival analysis and 10 mice per group 
for other assays at 24h after reperf usion.  
- Page 6, lines 43 -44. "After modeling, the activities and the death time of experimental mice 
were recorded daily." What is meant with "modeling"? How was activity recorded?  
- Statistical analysis: It is mentioned that "Small intestinal injury scor e evaluation was completed 
by repeated -measures ANOVA". Why did the authors choose to perform a repeated measures 
analysis? Were injury scores measured over time?  
Results:  
- Description of results is not clear. When reporting a significant difference, always the condition 
to which is compared should be mentioned.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
N/A 
 
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