Title: LACC1 regulates changes in the intestinal flora in a mouse model of inflammatory bowel
disease
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
- English needs to be revised
-  Verb tense needs to be corrected. In many places the future is used when the work has already
been done
- Statistical analysis needs to be better explained. The presented results were analyzed in relation
to the WTDSS group; There is no difference found between the WTDSS group and any other
group analyzed? Not even with the WT group?  So what is the objective of the other groups?
How to prove that inflammation by DSS was established if there is no difference between the
WTDSS group and the WT group?
- In the microbiota results, the analyzed bacteria were little explored. A. muciniphila, for
example, is a bacterium considered beneficial and is reduced in patients with IBD, therefore, the
result found go against with several studies in the literature.
Title: LACC1 regulates changes in the intestinal flora in a mouse model of inflammatory bowel
disease
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
- English needs to be revised
-  Verb tense needs to be corrected. In many places the future is used when the work has already
been done
- Statistical analysis needs to be better explained. The presented results were analyzed in relation
to the WTDSS group; There is no difference found between the WTDSS group and any other
group analyzed? Not even with the WT group?  So what is the objective of the other groups?
How to prove that inflammation by DSS was established if there is no difference between the
WTDSS group and the WT group?
- In the microbiota results, the analyzed bacteria were little explored. A. muciniphila, for
example, is a bacterium considered beneficial and is reduced in patients with IBD, therefore, the
result found go against with several studies in the literature.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: LACC1 regulates changes in the intestinal flora in a mouse model of inflammatory bowel
disease
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
- English needs to be revised
-  Verb tense needs to be corrected. In many places the future is used when the work has already
been done
- Statistical analysis needs to be better explained. The presented results were analyzed in relation
to the WTDSS group; There is no difference found between the WTDSS group and any other
group analyzed? Not even with the WT group?  So what is the objective of the other groups?
How to prove that inflammation by DSS was established if there is no difference between the
WTDSS group and the WT group?
- In the microbiota results, the analyzed bacteria were little explored. A. muciniphila, for
example, is a bacterium considered beneficial and is reduced in patients with IBD, therefore, the
result found go against with several studies in the literature.
assistant