Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  30 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiona Davidson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
specific comments : 
p7 lns 6 to 9 : were these samples retested and did the control band work in each run? It is correct 
that certain deletion mutations will not be detected by INNOLiPa, these are however quite rare and 
would be worth investigating. 
p7 lns 18 to 19 : a wild type and mutant mix would be detectable by INNOLiPa. The point that the 
authors are trying to make is not clear and the remainder of the paragraph is not very clear either. 
generally : The study and results are sound however the discussion is lacking in emphasis and 
correlation with the clinical relevance of the data. The discussion would be strengthened by 
reference to the finding that ALT values in both groups are similar and lack of clinical signs of 
cirrhosis/disease. The discussion would be improved by considering and refering to the following 
publications 1. Fukada et al. J Pediatr Gastroenerol Nutr 2001;33:301-306. 2. Bozdayi AM et al. J Clin Virol 2001;21:91-101. 3. Davidson et al. Vox Sang 2005;88:87-92. 
Finally, Table 2 could be presented in a more concise manner. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
spelling : p3 ln 13 insert 'a' before serology p3 ln 15 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p3 ln 17 insert the before precore 
p3 ln 21 start paragraph with A instead of The p5 ln 12 change HBsAg to HBeAg p6 ln 25 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p7 ln 10 delete that which is duplicated 
p7 ln 18 insert 'be' before due p7 ln 20 delete like and insert 'such as' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  30 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiona Davidson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
specific comments : 
p7 lns 6 to 9 : were these samples retested and did the control band work in each run? It is correct 
that certain deletion mutations will not be detected by INNOLiPa, these are however quite rare and 
would be worth investigating. 
p7 lns 18 to 19 : a wild type and mutant mix would be detectable by INNOLiPa. The point that the 
authors are trying to make is not clear and the remainder of the paragraph is not very clear either. 
generally : The study and results are sound however the discussion is lacking in emphasis and 
correlation with the clinical relevance of the data. The discussion would be strengthened by 
reference to the finding that ALT values in both groups are similar and lack of clinical signs of 
cirrhosis/disease. The discussion would be improved by considering and refering to the following 
publications 1. Fukada et al. J Pediatr Gastroenerol Nutr 2001;33:301-306. 2. Bozdayi AM et al. J Clin Virol 2001;21:91-101. 3. Davidson et al. Vox Sang 2005;88:87-92. 
Finally, Table 2 could be presented in a more concise manner. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
spelling : p3 ln 13 insert 'a' before serology p3 ln 15 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p3 ln 17 insert the before precore 
p3 ln 21 start paragraph with A instead of The p5 ln 12 change HBsAg to HBeAg p6 ln 25 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p7 ln 10 delete that which is duplicated 
p7 ln 18 insert 'be' before due p7 ln 20 delete like and insert 'such as' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  30 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiona Davidson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
specific comments : 
p7 lns 6 to 9 : were these samples retested and did the control band work in each run? It is correct 
that certain deletion mutations will not be detected by INNOLiPa, these are however quite rare and 
would be worth investigating. 
p7 lns 18 to 19 : a wild type and mutant mix would be detectable by INNOLiPa. The point that the 
authors are trying to make is not clear and the remainder of the paragraph is not very clear either. 
generally : The study and results are sound however the discussion is lacking in emphasis and 
correlation with the clinical relevance of the data. The discussion would be strengthened by 
reference to the finding that ALT values in both groups are similar and lack of clinical signs of 
cirrhosis/disease. The discussion would be improved by considering and refering to the following 
publications 1. Fukada et al. J Pediatr Gastroenerol Nutr 2001;33:301-306. 2. Bozdayi AM et al. J Clin Virol 2001;21:91-101. 3. Davidson et al. Vox Sang 2005;88:87-92. 
Finally, Table 2 could be presented in a more concise manner. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
spelling : p3 ln 13 insert 'a' before serology p3 ln 15 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p3 ln 17 insert the before precore 
p3 ln 21 start paragraph with A instead of The p5 ln 12 change HBsAg to HBeAg p6 ln 25 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p7 ln 10 delete that which is duplicated 
p7 ln 18 insert 'be' before due p7 ln 20 delete like and insert 'such as' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant