Reviewer’s report 
Title:  Inoculation with enterococci does not affect colon  inflammation in the multi-drug 
resistance 1a-deficient mouse model of IBD 
 
Version:  0 Date:  16 Sep 2015 
 
Reviewer:  Laurence Macia 
 
Reviewer's report: 
The present study looked at the impact of inoculati on of EF.CFI to Mdr1a-/- mice on 
development of colitis. These mice develop spontane ous colitis and the authors aimed to 
determine whether this bacterial inoculation might aggravate disease development. 
 
Major Points: 
1. A positive contol showing that the bacteria are active or alive is missing. Adding the IL-
10KO mice inoculated with this strain of bacteria c ompared to inoculated Mdr1-/- mice 
would be the perfect control and should be added fo r proper interpretation of the results. 
2. Is the strain of bacteria used in this study the  same as the one that has been used to show 
that IL-10KO mice developed accelerated colitis. 
3. Mdr1a-/- have decreased body weight compare to c ontrol. Is it due to disease severity or to 
a metabolic alteration? A graph correlating disease  scoring vs body weight would be a 
good addition to the m/s. 
4. The authors claim that disease development is si gnificantly worse in Mdr1a-/- inoculated or 
not when compared to control mice. Which scoring sy stem was used to evaluate disease 
severity? Colitis is characterised by colonic infla mmation and decreased colon length. 
Mdr1a-/- have a worse colitis while their colon len gth is similar to controls as well as the 
inflammatory mediator SAA. Histological pictures wo uld be a necessary addition to the 
m/s to illustrate that Mdr1a-/- are worse that cont rol mice. 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described? 
If not, please specify what is required in your com ments to the authors. 
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls? 
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors. 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by t he data shown? 
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
Unable to assess 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manusc ript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended,  please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors. 
Not relevant to this manuscript 
Quality of written English 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manu script: 
Acceptable 
Declaration of competing interests 
Please complete a declaration of competing interest s, considering the following questions: 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbur sements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose finan cially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future? 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisat ion that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript , either now or in the future? 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for an y patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript? 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding,  or salary from an organization that holds 
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interest s in relation to this paper? 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give det ails below. 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted o n the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named repo rt can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published. 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al 
Reviewer’s report 
Title:  Inoculation with enterococci does not affect colon  inflammation in the multi-drug 
resistance 1a-deficient mouse model of IBD 
 
Version:  0 Date:  16 Sep 2015 
 
Reviewer:  Laurence Macia 
 
Reviewer's report: 
The present study looked at the impact of inoculati on of EF.CFI to Mdr1a-/- mice on 
development of colitis. These mice develop spontane ous colitis and the authors aimed to 
determine whether this bacterial inoculation might aggravate disease development. 
 
Major Points: 
1. A positive contol showing that the bacteria are active or alive is missing. Adding the IL-
10KO mice inoculated with this strain of bacteria c ompared to inoculated Mdr1-/- mice 
would be the perfect control and should be added fo r proper interpretation of the results. 
2. Is the strain of bacteria used in this study the  same as the one that has been used to show 
that IL-10KO mice developed accelerated colitis. 
3. Mdr1a-/- have decreased body weight compare to c ontrol. Is it due to disease severity or to 
a metabolic alteration? A graph correlating disease  scoring vs body weight would be a 
good addition to the m/s. 
4. The authors claim that disease development is si gnificantly worse in Mdr1a-/- inoculated or 
not when compared to control mice. Which scoring sy stem was used to evaluate disease 
severity? Colitis is characterised by colonic infla mmation and decreased colon length. 
Mdr1a-/- have a worse colitis while their colon len gth is similar to controls as well as the 
inflammatory mediator SAA. Histological pictures wo uld be a necessary addition to the 
m/s to illustrate that Mdr1a-/- are worse that cont rol mice. 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described? 
If not, please specify what is required in your com ments to the authors. 
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls? 
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors. 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by t he data shown? 
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
Unable to assess 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manusc ript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended,  please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors. 
Not relevant to this manuscript 
Quality of written English 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manu script: 
Acceptable 
Declaration of competing interests 
Please complete a declaration of competing interest s, considering the following questions: 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbur sements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose finan cially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future? 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisat ion that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript , either now or in the future? 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for an y patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript? 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding,  or salary from an organization that holds 
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interest s in relation to this paper? 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give det ails below. 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted o n the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named repo rt can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published. 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report 
Title:  Inoculation with enterococci does not affect colon  inflammation in the multi-drug 
resistance 1a-deficient mouse model of IBD 
 
Version:  0 Date:  16 Sep 2015 
 
Reviewer:  Laurence Macia 
 
Reviewer's report: 
The present study looked at the impact of inoculati on of EF.CFI to Mdr1a-/- mice on 
development of colitis. These mice develop spontane ous colitis and the authors aimed to 
determine whether this bacterial inoculation might aggravate disease development. 
 
Major Points: 
1. A positive contol showing that the bacteria are active or alive is missing. Adding the IL-
10KO mice inoculated with this strain of bacteria c ompared to inoculated Mdr1-/- mice 
would be the perfect control and should be added fo r proper interpretation of the results. 
2. Is the strain of bacteria used in this study the  same as the one that has been used to show 
that IL-10KO mice developed accelerated colitis. 
3. Mdr1a-/- have decreased body weight compare to c ontrol. Is it due to disease severity or to 
a metabolic alteration? A graph correlating disease  scoring vs body weight would be a 
good addition to the m/s. 
4. The authors claim that disease development is si gnificantly worse in Mdr1a-/- inoculated or 
not when compared to control mice. Which scoring sy stem was used to evaluate disease 
severity? Colitis is characterised by colonic infla mmation and decreased colon length. 
Mdr1a-/- have a worse colitis while their colon len gth is similar to controls as well as the 
inflammatory mediator SAA. Histological pictures wo uld be a necessary addition to the 
m/s to illustrate that Mdr1a-/- are worse that cont rol mice. 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described? 
If not, please specify what is required in your com ments to the authors. 
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls? 
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors. 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by t he data shown? 
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
Unable to assess 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manusc ript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended,  please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors. 
Not relevant to this manuscript 
Quality of written English 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manu script: 
Acceptable 
Declaration of competing interests 
Please complete a declaration of competing interest s, considering the following questions: 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbur sements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose finan cially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future? 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisat ion that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript , either now or in the future? 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for an y patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript? 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding,  or salary from an organization that holds 
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript? 
5. Do you have any other financial competing intere sts? 
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interest s in relation to this paper? 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give det ails below. 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted o n the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named repo rt can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published. 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al 
assistant