Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 3Date:27 February 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have in general well responded to the comments and suggestions of
the reviewers, and have submitted a much improved manuscript. Also, thank you
for including line and page numbers!
Nevertheless, I still have a few issues that I would like to share with the authors.
General remarks:
Still at a number of places throughout the manuscript, the authors give the
impression that they assessed overall microbial community structure by DGGE.
This is not the case, as only lactobacilli were targeted. This really has to be
adjusted for p.2, l.18; p.6, l.24; p.7, l.31; p.9, l.6; p.9, l.9; p.11, l.18; but please
make sure that I didn’t miss any.
p.2, l.10-12: The description of the probiotic addition is different from the one
given in Materials and Methods. Please check.
p.2, l.14: were carried out for monitoring of the microbial community
p.3, l.15 and throughout the manuscript; species is abbreviated spp., not ssp.
p.4, l.12: Preparation of L.acidophilus CRL 1014 cells
p.4, l.18: For how long were the cells kept until use?
p.4, l.23: to resemble those found in vivo
p.4, l.26: If figure 1 is supplementary, number this one as S1, and renumber the
figures included in the main text accordingly, starting with Figure 1.
p.5, l.2: fresh fecal samples
p.5, l.5: The sentences starting from line 5 and line 8 are giving essentially the
same information
p.8, l.29: I am quite concerned regarding the counts of clostridia. Counts of more
than 12 log seem too high, even for fecal samples, let stand model content
samples which have a much lower density.
p.9, l.8: DGGE analysis was used to monitor qualitative changes in the
composition and structure of the Lactobacillus communities in the three
compartments simulating colon conditions (Fig.2)
Fig.2/3 : What exactly is the added value of having these two figures? They
basically show the same DGGE profiles, right? If Figure 2 is just to indicate the
position of the band related to the probiotic, just indicate this in what is now Fig.3
p.9, l.28: I would suggest to either repeat the sequencing, or not mention it at all.
If the sequence quality is so bad that you only get to 81%, I wouldn’t trust any
matches with reference sequences, and thus this information is really not so
meaningful.
p.10, l.13 and throughout the manuscript: As opposed to latin languages, it’s
ascending colon in english, rather than colon ascending
p.11, l.6: microbial markers for what?
p.12, l.22: This reference doesn’t have any authors that are involved in the
current manuscript?
Figure 5; I would suggest to convert the concentrations to molar concentrations
to make the values more comparable for the different fatty acids
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 3Date:27 February 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have in general well responded to the comments and suggestions of
the reviewers, and have submitted a much improved manuscript. Also, thank you
for including line and page numbers!
Nevertheless, I still have a few issues that I would like to share with the authors.
General remarks:
Still at a number of places throughout the manuscript, the authors give the
impression that they assessed overall microbial community structure by DGGE.
This is not the case, as only lactobacilli were targeted. This really has to be
adjusted for p.2, l.18; p.6, l.24; p.7, l.31; p.9, l.6; p.9, l.9; p.11, l.18; but please
make sure that I didn’t miss any.
p.2, l.10-12: The description of the probiotic addition is different from the one
given in Materials and Methods. Please check.
p.2, l.14: were carried out for monitoring of the microbial community
p.3, l.15 and throughout the manuscript; species is abbreviated spp., not ssp.
p.4, l.12: Preparation of L.acidophilus CRL 1014 cells
p.4, l.18: For how long were the cells kept until use?
p.4, l.23: to resemble those found in vivo
p.4, l.26: If figure 1 is supplementary, number this one as S1, and renumber the
figures included in the main text accordingly, starting with Figure 1.
p.5, l.2: fresh fecal samples
p.5, l.5: The sentences starting from line 5 and line 8 are giving essentially the
same information
p.8, l.29: I am quite concerned regarding the counts of clostridia. Counts of more
than 12 log seem too high, even for fecal samples, let stand model content
samples which have a much lower density.
p.9, l.8: DGGE analysis was used to monitor qualitative changes in the
composition and structure of the Lactobacillus communities in the three
compartments simulating colon conditions (Fig.2)
Fig.2/3 : What exactly is the added value of having these two figures? They
basically show the same DGGE profiles, right? If Figure 2 is just to indicate the
position of the band related to the probiotic, just indicate this in what is now Fig.3
p.9, l.28: I would suggest to either repeat the sequencing, or not mention it at all.
If the sequence quality is so bad that you only get to 81%, I wouldn’t trust any
matches with reference sequences, and thus this information is really not so
meaningful.
p.10, l.13 and throughout the manuscript: As opposed to latin languages, it’s
ascending colon in english, rather than colon ascending
p.11, l.6: microbial markers for what?
p.12, l.22: This reference doesn’t have any authors that are involved in the
current manuscript?
Figure 5; I would suggest to convert the concentrations to molar concentrations
to make the values more comparable for the different fatty acids
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interest
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 3Date:27 February 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have in general well responded to the comments and suggestions of
the reviewers, and have submitted a much improved manuscript. Also, thank you
for including line and page numbers!
Nevertheless, I still have a few issues that I would like to share with the authors.
General remarks:
Still at a number of places throughout the manuscript, the authors give the
impression that they assessed overall microbial community structure by DGGE.
This is not the case, as only lactobacilli were targeted. This really has to be
adjusted for p.2, l.18; p.6, l.24; p.7, l.31; p.9, l.6; p.9, l.9; p.11, l.18; but please
make sure that I didn’t miss any.
p.2, l.10-12: The description of the probiotic addition is different from the one
given in Materials and Methods. Please check.
p.2, l.14: were carried out for monitoring of the microbial community
p.3, l.15 and throughout the manuscript; species is abbreviated spp., not ssp.
p.4, l.12: Preparation of L.acidophilus CRL 1014 cells
p.4, l.18: For how long were the cells kept until use?
p.4, l.23: to resemble those found in vivo
p.4, l.26: If figure 1 is supplementary, number this one as S1, and renumber the
figures included in the main text accordingly, starting with Figure 1.
p.5, l.2: fresh fecal samples
p.5, l.5: The sentences starting from line 5 and line 8 are giving essentially the
same information
p.8, l.29: I am quite concerned regarding the counts of clostridia. Counts of more
than 12 log seem too high, even for fecal samples, let stand model content
samples which have a much lower density.
p.9, l.8: DGGE analysis was used to monitor qualitative changes in the
composition and structure of the Lactobacillus communities in the three
compartments simulating colon conditions (Fig.2)
Fig.2/3 : What exactly is the added value of having these two figures? They
basically show the same DGGE profiles, right? If Figure 2 is just to indicate the
position of the band related to the probiotic, just indicate this in what is now Fig.3
p.9, l.28: I would suggest to either repeat the sequencing, or not mention it at all.
If the sequence quality is so bad that you only get to 81%, I wouldn’t trust any
matches with reference sequences, and thus this information is really not so
meaningful.
p.10, l.13 and throughout the manuscript: As opposed to latin languages, it’s
ascending colon in english, rather than colon ascending
p.11, l.6: microbial markers for what?
p.12, l.22: This reference doesn’t have any authors that are involved in the
current manuscript?
Figure 5; I would suggest to convert the concentrations to molar concentrations
to make the values more comparable for the different fatty acids
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interest
assistant