Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Multiparametric functional magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm  
ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Name of the reviewer: Quadri Kunle ALABI  
 
 
Reviewer comments  
 
o This is an interesting art icle, and this work will give clinical insight on h ow to use MRI 
techniques for diagnosis hepatic pathologies over liver biopsy techniques  
 
 
 
Topic  
 
o Multiparametric functional MR imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion 
injury in a rabbit model  
 
 
o The authors should consider changing to "M ultiparametric functional magnetic resonance 
imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model"  
 
 
 
Abstract page 2  
 
The abstract is ok. But, there is minor grammatical mistake  
 
Page 2 line 24 -26 
 
o The authors compared MR parameters between two groups. Where are the two groups in the 
abstract? The two groups should be mentioned in the material and methods of the abstract for 
clarity.  
 
 
Line 30 -31 
 
o The authors should consider writing PF, MD and MD in  full 
Line 42 -45 
 
o The authors give only histopathological summary of WIRI group. What about the second 
group?  
 
 
o I therefore, recommend the histopathological s ummary of the second group. The 
histopathological of both groups should be compared for clarity.  
 
 
 
Introduction  
 
Page 3 line 30 -37 
 
o I do believe that hepatic WIRI resulted to oxidative stress due to reactive oxygen species(ROS) 
production which eventually lead to antioxidants imbalance and inflammatory cells response.  
 
o I suggest, the authors should ex plain in brief, "the role of WIRI in ROS production", since they 
assayed for oxidative stress markers in this study.  
 
 
 
Materials and Methods  
 
Page 6 line 25 -27 
 
o Describedfrom were written together. I believe that is not the correct spelling.  
 
Page 7 line 1  
 
I suggest, the authors should explain;  
 
o How the animals were sacrificed,  
 
o How the venous blood was collected from each animal and  
 
o How the serum blood was collected and/or separated from RBCs before using it for liver 
function parameter  
 
Line 14 -15 
 
o Why did the authors assayed for only superoxide dismutase (SOD)? There are other enzymatic 
(catalase CAT, glutathione peroxidase GPX, glutathione S transferase etc) and non -enzymatic 
antioxidants (reduced glutathione GSH) that they can assay for. These are j ust to make the study 
more detailed.  
Line 20 -30 
 
o I recommend addition of the liver histological scores of the two groups  
 
 
Results  
 
Page 8 line 35 -39 
 
o The authors should state clearly the statistical or significant difference in ALT, AST, LDH, 
MDA, MPO and SOD among the two groups. Are they higher or lower in WIRI group compared 
to control? Not really clear. This session required more statistical diffe rence details of all these 
parameters.  
 
o Generally, the authors should give more statistical details of the two groups  
 
 
 
Discussions  
 
This is ok  
 
Page 9 line 45 -48 
 
* I suggest, the authors should do hepatic histological scores for the two groups to confirm t he 
hepatocyte death, swelling and inflammatory cell infiltration.  
 
 
In general, this is an interesting article, the results and conclusions well conveyed, but this is just 
a pilot study. More research work with larger population of subjects should be carrie d out. The 
article needs slight grammatical corrections.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he 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 recommend additional stat istical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 publication 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 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 fo r 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 h ave no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 Acc ess 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: Multiparametric functional magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm  
ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Name of the reviewer: Quadri Kunle ALABI  
 
 
Reviewer comments  
 
o This is an interesting art icle, and this work will give clinical insight on h ow to use MRI 
techniques for diagnosis hepatic pathologies over liver biopsy techniques  
 
 
 
Topic  
 
o Multiparametric functional MR imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion 
injury in a rabbit model  
 
 
o The authors should consider changing to "M ultiparametric functional magnetic resonance 
imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model"  
 
 
 
Abstract page 2  
 
The abstract is ok. But, there is minor grammatical mistake  
 
Page 2 line 24 -26 
 
o The authors compared MR parameters between two groups. Where are the two groups in the 
abstract? The two groups should be mentioned in the material and methods of the abstract for 
clarity.  
 
 
Line 30 -31 
 
o The authors should consider writing PF, MD and MD in  full 
Line 42 -45 
 
o The authors give only histopathological summary of WIRI group. What about the second 
group?  
 
 
o I therefore, recommend the histopathological s ummary of the second group. The 
histopathological of both groups should be compared for clarity.  
 
 
 
Introduction  
 
Page 3 line 30 -37 
 
o I do believe that hepatic WIRI resulted to oxidative stress due to reactive oxygen species(ROS) 
production which eventually lead to antioxidants imbalance and inflammatory cells response.  
 
o I suggest, the authors should ex plain in brief, "the role of WIRI in ROS production", since they 
assayed for oxidative stress markers in this study.  
 
 
 
Materials and Methods  
 
Page 6 line 25 -27 
 
o Describedfrom were written together. I believe that is not the correct spelling.  
 
Page 7 line 1  
 
I suggest, the authors should explain;  
 
o How the animals were sacrificed,  
 
o How the venous blood was collected from each animal and  
 
o How the serum blood was collected and/or separated from RBCs before using it for liver 
function parameter  
 
Line 14 -15 
 
o Why did the authors assayed for only superoxide dismutase (SOD)? There are other enzymatic 
(catalase CAT, glutathione peroxidase GPX, glutathione S transferase etc) and non -enzymatic 
antioxidants (reduced glutathione GSH) that they can assay for. These are j ust to make the study 
more detailed.  
Line 20 -30 
 
o I recommend addition of the liver histological scores of the two groups  
 
 
Results  
 
Page 8 line 35 -39 
 
o The authors should state clearly the statistical or significant difference in ALT, AST, LDH, 
MDA, MPO and SOD among the two groups. Are they higher or lower in WIRI group compared 
to control? Not really clear. This session required more statistical diffe rence details of all these 
parameters.  
 
o Generally, the authors should give more statistical details of the two groups  
 
 
 
Discussions  
 
This is ok  
 
Page 9 line 45 -48 
 
* I suggest, the authors should do hepatic histological scores for the two groups to confirm t he 
hepatocyte death, swelling and inflammatory cell infiltration.  
 
 
In general, this is an interesting article, the results and conclusions well conveyed, but this is just 
a pilot study. More research work with larger population of subjects should be carrie d out. The 
article needs slight grammatical corrections.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he 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 recommend additional stat istical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 publication 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 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 fo r 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 h ave no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 Acc ess 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: Multiparametric functional magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm  
ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Name of the reviewer: Quadri Kunle ALABI  
 
 
Reviewer comments  
 
o This is an interesting art icle, and this work will give clinical insight on h ow to use MRI 
techniques for diagnosis hepatic pathologies over liver biopsy techniques  
 
 
 
Topic  
 
o Multiparametric functional MR imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion 
injury in a rabbit model  
 
 
o The authors should consider changing to "M ultiparametric functional magnetic resonance 
imaging for evaluation of hepatic warm ischemia -reperfusion injury in a rabbit model"  
 
 
 
Abstract page 2  
 
The abstract is ok. But, there is minor grammatical mistake  
 
Page 2 line 24 -26 
 
o The authors compared MR parameters between two groups. Where are the two groups in the 
abstract? The two groups should be mentioned in the material and methods of the abstract for 
clarity.  
 
 
Line 30 -31 
 
o The authors should consider writing PF, MD and MD in  full 
Line 42 -45 
 
o The authors give only histopathological summary of WIRI group. What about the second 
group?  
 
 
o I therefore, recommend the histopathological s ummary of the second group. The 
histopathological of both groups should be compared for clarity.  
 
 
 
Introduction  
 
Page 3 line 30 -37 
 
o I do believe that hepatic WIRI resulted to oxidative stress due to reactive oxygen species(ROS) 
production which eventually lead to antioxidants imbalance and inflammatory cells response.  
 
o I suggest, the authors should ex plain in brief, "the role of WIRI in ROS production", since they 
assayed for oxidative stress markers in this study.  
 
 
 
Materials and Methods  
 
Page 6 line 25 -27 
 
o Describedfrom were written together. I believe that is not the correct spelling.  
 
Page 7 line 1  
 
I suggest, the authors should explain;  
 
o How the animals were sacrificed,  
 
o How the venous blood was collected from each animal and  
 
o How the serum blood was collected and/or separated from RBCs before using it for liver 
function parameter  
 
Line 14 -15 
 
o Why did the authors assayed for only superoxide dismutase (SOD)? There are other enzymatic 
(catalase CAT, glutathione peroxidase GPX, glutathione S transferase etc) and non -enzymatic 
antioxidants (reduced glutathione GSH) that they can assay for. These are j ust to make the study 
more detailed.  
Line 20 -30 
 
o I recommend addition of the liver histological scores of the two groups  
 
 
Results  
 
Page 8 line 35 -39 
 
o The authors should state clearly the statistical or significant difference in ALT, AST, LDH, 
MDA, MPO and SOD among the two groups. Are they higher or lower in WIRI group compared 
to control? Not really clear. This session required more statistical diffe rence details of all these 
parameters.  
 
o Generally, the authors should give more statistical details of the two groups  
 
 
 
Discussions  
 
This is ok  
 
Page 9 line 45 -48 
 
* I suggest, the authors should do hepatic histological scores for the two groups to confirm t he 
hepatocyte death, swelling and inflammatory cell infiltration.  
 
 
In general, this is an interesting article, the results and conclusions well conveyed, but this is just 
a pilot study. More research work with larger population of subjects should be carrie d out. The 
article needs slight grammatical corrections.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he 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 recommend additional stat istical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 publication 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 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 fo r 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 h ave no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 Acc ess 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