Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:29 March 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have further improved their manuscript, and I have only a few
comments left that I would like to share with them.
Most importantly, as also pointed out by the other reviewer of the manuscript, it is
quite surprising that sequencing seems to be so problematic. It is hard to believe
that the authors don’t have access to commercial sequencing services, which are
popping up all around the world. It’s nowadays relatively cheap, e.g., to send
your samples to Korea or elsewhere, and get high quality sequences at low cost
back within several days to weeks. I don’t see the need to rely on slow and/or
costly internal facilities at the authors’ University.
p.2, l.18: Should be DGGE, not DGEE
p.4, l.23: delete “experiments”
p.5, l.20: I have pointed this out before, but there is still plenty of ssp., rather than
the correct spp. as abbreviation for species. Please check your manuscript
throughout for those errors.
p.9, l.17: what means 99 at 91%? Do you mean 99 to 91%?
p.11, l.10:Clostridium should be in italics
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:29 March 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have further improved their manuscript, and I have only a few
comments left that I would like to share with them.
Most importantly, as also pointed out by the other reviewer of the manuscript, it is
quite surprising that sequencing seems to be so problematic. It is hard to believe
that the authors don’t have access to commercial sequencing services, which are
popping up all around the world. It’s nowadays relatively cheap, e.g., to send
your samples to Korea or elsewhere, and get high quality sequences at low cost
back within several days to weeks. I don’t see the need to rely on slow and/or
costly internal facilities at the authors’ University.
p.2, l.18: Should be DGGE, not DGEE
p.4, l.23: delete “experiments”
p.5, l.20: I have pointed this out before, but there is still plenty of ssp., rather than
the correct spp. as abbreviation for species. Please check your manuscript
throughout for those errors.
p.9, l.17: what means 99 at 91%? Do you mean 99 to 91%?
p.11, l.10:Clostridium should be in italics
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 1014 improved gut health in the SHIME
reactor
Version: 4Date:29 March 2013
Reviewer: Susana Fuentes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have further improved their manuscript, and I have only a few
comments left that I would like to share with them.
Most importantly, as also pointed out by the other reviewer of the manuscript, it is
quite surprising that sequencing seems to be so problematic. It is hard to believe
that the authors don’t have access to commercial sequencing services, which are
popping up all around the world. It’s nowadays relatively cheap, e.g., to send
your samples to Korea or elsewhere, and get high quality sequences at low cost
back within several days to weeks. I don’t see the need to rely on slow and/or
costly internal facilities at the authors’ University.
p.2, l.18: Should be DGGE, not DGEE
p.4, l.23: delete “experiments”
p.5, l.20: I have pointed this out before, but there is still plenty of ssp., rather than
the correct spp. as abbreviation for species. Please check your manuscript
throughout for those errors.
p.9, l.17: what means 99 at 91%? Do you mean 99 to 91%?
p.11, l.10:Clostridium should be in italics
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant