Reviewer's report
Title:Glucagon-like peptides 1 and 2 and vasoactive intestinal peptide are
neuroprotective on cultured and mast cell co-cultured rat myenteric neurons
Version: 1Date:21 December 2011
Reviewer: Axel Brehmer
Reviewer's report:
This study demonstrates neuroprotective effects of glucagon-like peptides and
VIP on rat myenteric neurons in culture. The peptides counteracted mast
cell-induced cytotoxicity and this effect was reversed by addition of appropriate
receptor antagonists. Generally, experiments and results were described
adequately. Some minor comments should be considered before publication.
(1) Background and Discussion sections could be shortened (20% each) without
loss of information. Additionally, for the general reader, subheadings in the
Discussion would be helpful.
(2) Page 8/Histochemistry: Mast cell estimation by toluidine blue staining should
be documented or, if already published, should be referred to.
(3) Page 8/Immunocytochemistry and page 9/Cell counting: The authors report
on HuC/HuD-staining, without documentation. Since PGP9.5 is not a real
pan-neuronal marker (among others: Phillips, J Neurosci Methods, 133, 2004,
99-107), the authors should re-check and discuss their neuron count strategy.
Furthermore, in the Results section/page 9, the authors note that HuC/D-stained
neurons “displayed rich networks of arborizing fibres”. Generally, HuC/D displays
only neuronal nuclei and perikarya. Supposedly, this observation was made by
PGP-staining only?
(4) Page 9: Please, specify data on the “synthetic histamine antiserum”.
(5) Legend to Fig 1: What are “anatomical contacts” between neurons and mast
cells?
(6) Fig 1 and legend: I suppose that the reason for visualizing both PGP and
histamine by using the same secondary antibody is rather the fact that both
primary antibodies derived from rabbit, not “to percieve the anatomical
relationship” between cells. Although I realize that “neurons and mast cells are
simply distinguished” by their morphologies, a differential visualization would be
both more objective and elegant.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Glucagon-like peptides 1 and 2 and vasoactive intestinal peptide are
neuroprotective on cultured and mast cell co-cultured rat myenteric neurons
Version: 1Date:21 December 2011
Reviewer: Axel Brehmer
Reviewer's report:
This study demonstrates neuroprotective effects of glucagon-like peptides and
VIP on rat myenteric neurons in culture. The peptides counteracted mast
cell-induced cytotoxicity and this effect was reversed by addition of appropriate
receptor antagonists. Generally, experiments and results were described
adequately. Some minor comments should be considered before publication.
(1) Background and Discussion sections could be shortened (20% each) without
loss of information. Additionally, for the general reader, subheadings in the
Discussion would be helpful.
(2) Page 8/Histochemistry: Mast cell estimation by toluidine blue staining should
be documented or, if already published, should be referred to.
(3) Page 8/Immunocytochemistry and page 9/Cell counting: The authors report
on HuC/HuD-staining, without documentation. Since PGP9.5 is not a real
pan-neuronal marker (among others: Phillips, J Neurosci Methods, 133, 2004,
99-107), the authors should re-check and discuss their neuron count strategy.
Furthermore, in the Results section/page 9, the authors note that HuC/D-stained
neurons “displayed rich networks of arborizing fibres”. Generally, HuC/D displays
only neuronal nuclei and perikarya. Supposedly, this observation was made by
PGP-staining only?
(4) Page 9: Please, specify data on the “synthetic histamine antiserum”.
(5) Legend to Fig 1: What are “anatomical contacts” between neurons and mast
cells?
(6) Fig 1 and legend: I suppose that the reason for visualizing both PGP and
histamine by using the same secondary antibody is rather the fact that both
primary antibodies derived from rabbit, not “to percieve the anatomical
relationship” between cells. Although I realize that “neurons and mast cells are
simply distinguished” by their morphologies, a differential visualization would be
both more objective and elegant.
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Glucagon-like peptides 1 and 2 and vasoactive intestinal peptide are
neuroprotective on cultured and mast cell co-cultured rat myenteric neurons
Version: 1Date:21 December 2011
Reviewer: Axel Brehmer
Reviewer's report:
This study demonstrates neuroprotective effects of glucagon-like peptides and
VIP on rat myenteric neurons in culture. The peptides counteracted mast
cell-induced cytotoxicity and this effect was reversed by addition of appropriate
receptor antagonists. Generally, experiments and results were described
adequately. Some minor comments should be considered before publication.
(1) Background and Discussion sections could be shortened (20% each) without
loss of information. Additionally, for the general reader, subheadings in the
Discussion would be helpful.
(2) Page 8/Histochemistry: Mast cell estimation by toluidine blue staining should
be documented or, if already published, should be referred to.
(3) Page 8/Immunocytochemistry and page 9/Cell counting: The authors report
on HuC/HuD-staining, without documentation. Since PGP9.5 is not a real
pan-neuronal marker (among others: Phillips, J Neurosci Methods, 133, 2004,
99-107), the authors should re-check and discuss their neuron count strategy.
Furthermore, in the Results section/page 9, the authors note that HuC/D-stained
neurons “displayed rich networks of arborizing fibres”. Generally, HuC/D displays
only neuronal nuclei and perikarya. Supposedly, this observation was made by
PGP-staining only?
(4) Page 9: Please, specify data on the “synthetic histamine antiserum”.
(5) Legend to Fig 1: What are “anatomical contacts” between neurons and mast
cells?
(6) Fig 1 and legend: I suppose that the reason for visualizing both PGP and
histamine by using the same secondary antibody is rather the fact that both
primary antibodies derived from rabbit, not “to percieve the anatomical
relationship” between cells. Although I realize that “neurons and mast cells are
simply distinguished” by their morphologies, a differential visualization would be
both more objective and elegant.
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.
assistant