Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of a probiotic fermented milk in the gut ecosystem and in the
systemic immunity using a non-sever protein-energy-malnutrition model in mice
Version: 1Date:26 December 2010
Reviewer: Federico Lara-Villoslada
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
First of all, I would like to apologize for the delay in sending my report.
The manuscript by Maldonado Galdeano et al. deals with an interesting topic as
is the effects of probiotics on immunity and the intestinal recovery after a
malnutrition period.
The work done by the authors is very width containing up to three experiments in
the present manuscript, which it is really valuable but it also makes more difficult
the understanding of the work and the interpretation of the results.
I think that the manuscript is suitable for publication, although I would suggest
some changes to make it easier to understand and to help the reader to focus on
the most important information.
I would suggest the following minor essential revisions:
1. Abstract: the three different experiments should be included, I mean, the
general recovery experiment, the OVA assay and also the Salmonella
experiment. In addition the results should be described with more specific details
rather than with general terms such as 'function of certain immune cells¡,
systemic immune response' or innate immune response'. Finally, the item
conclusions contains results rather than conclusions and I would suggest to
include one or two conclusions of the work.
2. Methodology:
- the number of mice used for each experiment should be clearly stated in each
item and not only in the section of 'statistical analysis'.
- the design of the OVA experiment is not very well described and the objective
of giving the supplement diets prior and after the injection is not well justified.
3. Results:
- as a consequence of the huge work done by the authors there are a lot of
results and they are poorly described in the text. For example, a complicated
figure such as figure 4 is only accompanied with a paragrapgh in the text (lines
294-298). I would suggest one of two, simplify the figures or explain teh results
more in detail.
- Line 313: is too speculative since there are not statistically significant
differences.
- Figure 2C: the number of lactobacilli is significantly higher in the malnourished
mice. This result should be mentioned and discussed.
4. Discussion:
- the results from the different experiments are discued individually and they are
not conected throughout the discussion. In my opinion the discusion would be
richer if the results from the different experiments were connected with each
other. It does not mean to make the discusion longer, since I think that there are
paragraphs that could be deleted or resumed, such as lines 392-403.
Finally I have found some typographycal errors:
- Line 35: 'nutrient' should be changed by 'nutrients'
- Line 46: 'know' should be changed by 'known'
- Line 56: 'evaluate' should be changed by 'to evaluate'
- Line 108: 'isolates' should be changed by 'isolated'
- Line 205: 'pot' should be changed by 'post'
- Line 245: 'in same' should be changed bu 'in the same'
- Line 323: an space between 5 and days is lacking.
- Line 338: 'of' should be changed by 'from'
- Line 427: 'high even' should be changed by 'even high'
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:
I work for a company that could be competitor of the company supporting the
present work, but I declare that this has not influenced my review.
Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of a probiotic fermented milk in the gut ecosystem and in the
systemic immunity using a non-sever protein-energy-malnutrition model in mice
Version: 1Date:26 December 2010
Reviewer: Federico Lara-Villoslada
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
First of all, I would like to apologize for the delay in sending my report.
The manuscript by Maldonado Galdeano et al. deals with an interesting topic as
is the effects of probiotics on immunity and the intestinal recovery after a
malnutrition period.
The work done by the authors is very width containing up to three experiments in
the present manuscript, which it is really valuable but it also makes more difficult
the understanding of the work and the interpretation of the results.
I think that the manuscript is suitable for publication, although I would suggest
some changes to make it easier to understand and to help the reader to focus on
the most important information.
I would suggest the following minor essential revisions:
1. Abstract: the three different experiments should be included, I mean, the
general recovery experiment, the OVA assay and also the Salmonella
experiment. In addition the results should be described with more specific details
rather than with general terms such as 'function of certain immune cells¡,
systemic immune response' or innate immune response'. Finally, the item
conclusions contains results rather than conclusions and I would suggest to
include one or two conclusions of the work.
2. Methodology:
- the number of mice used for each experiment should be clearly stated in each
item and not only in the section of 'statistical analysis'.
- the design of the OVA experiment is not very well described and the objective
of giving the supplement diets prior and after the injection is not well justified.
3. Results:
- as a consequence of the huge work done by the authors there are a lot of
results and they are poorly described in the text. For example, a complicated
figure such as figure 4 is only accompanied with a paragrapgh in the text (lines
294-298). I would suggest one of two, simplify the figures or explain teh results
more in detail.
- Line 313: is too speculative since there are not statistically significant
differences.
- Figure 2C: the number of lactobacilli is significantly higher in the malnourished
mice. This result should be mentioned and discussed.
4. Discussion:
- the results from the different experiments are discued individually and they are
not conected throughout the discussion. In my opinion the discusion would be
richer if the results from the different experiments were connected with each
other. It does not mean to make the discusion longer, since I think that there are
paragraphs that could be deleted or resumed, such as lines 392-403.
Finally I have found some typographycal errors:
- Line 35: 'nutrient' should be changed by 'nutrients'
- Line 46: 'know' should be changed by 'known'
- Line 56: 'evaluate' should be changed by 'to evaluate'
- Line 108: 'isolates' should be changed by 'isolated'
- Line 205: 'pot' should be changed by 'post'
- Line 245: 'in same' should be changed bu 'in the same'
- Line 323: an space between 5 and days is lacking.
- Line 338: 'of' should be changed by 'from'
- Line 427: 'high even' should be changed by 'even high'
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:
I work for a company that could be competitor of the company supporting the
present work, but I declare that this has not influenced my review.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of a probiotic fermented milk in the gut ecosystem and in the
systemic immunity using a non-sever protein-energy-malnutrition model in mice
Version: 1Date:26 December 2010
Reviewer: Federico Lara-Villoslada
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
First of all, I would like to apologize for the delay in sending my report.
The manuscript by Maldonado Galdeano et al. deals with an interesting topic as
is the effects of probiotics on immunity and the intestinal recovery after a
malnutrition period.
The work done by the authors is very width containing up to three experiments in
the present manuscript, which it is really valuable but it also makes more difficult
the understanding of the work and the interpretation of the results.
I think that the manuscript is suitable for publication, although I would suggest
some changes to make it easier to understand and to help the reader to focus on
the most important information.
I would suggest the following minor essential revisions:
1. Abstract: the three different experiments should be included, I mean, the
general recovery experiment, the OVA assay and also the Salmonella
experiment. In addition the results should be described with more specific details
rather than with general terms such as 'function of certain immune cells¡,
systemic immune response' or innate immune response'. Finally, the item
conclusions contains results rather than conclusions and I would suggest to
include one or two conclusions of the work.
2. Methodology:
- the number of mice used for each experiment should be clearly stated in each
item and not only in the section of 'statistical analysis'.
- the design of the OVA experiment is not very well described and the objective
of giving the supplement diets prior and after the injection is not well justified.
3. Results:
- as a consequence of the huge work done by the authors there are a lot of
results and they are poorly described in the text. For example, a complicated
figure such as figure 4 is only accompanied with a paragrapgh in the text (lines
294-298). I would suggest one of two, simplify the figures or explain teh results
more in detail.
- Line 313: is too speculative since there are not statistically significant
differences.
- Figure 2C: the number of lactobacilli is significantly higher in the malnourished
mice. This result should be mentioned and discussed.
4. Discussion:
- the results from the different experiments are discued individually and they are
not conected throughout the discussion. In my opinion the discusion would be
richer if the results from the different experiments were connected with each
other. It does not mean to make the discusion longer, since I think that there are
paragraphs that could be deleted or resumed, such as lines 392-403.
Finally I have found some typographycal errors:
- Line 35: 'nutrient' should be changed by 'nutrients'
- Line 46: 'know' should be changed by 'known'
- Line 56: 'evaluate' should be changed by 'to evaluate'
- Line 108: 'isolates' should be changed by 'isolated'
- Line 205: 'pot' should be changed by 'post'
- Line 245: 'in same' should be changed bu 'in the same'
- Line 323: an space between 5 and days is lacking.
- Line 338: 'of' should be changed by 'from'
- Line 427: 'high even' should be changed by 'even high'
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:
I work for a company that could be competitor of the company supporting the
present work, but I declare that this has not influenced my review.
assistant