Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL DETECTION OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS IN
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIOUS PROCTITIS
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
1. Abstract. Methods section. What was considered as risky sexual activity should be specified.
2. 33.3% should be corrected to 33%. The total number of cases with IHC and the positive case
number should be provided.
3. Abstract. “We retrospectively applied immunohistochemistry with paraffin blocks and a
mouse monoclonal antibody (Santa Crutz Biotechnology) for the identification of Chlamydia
trachomatis”.
4. What was HH should be specified.
5. It’s “Chlamydia trachomatis” and “Treponema pallidum” not “clamydia trachomatis” and
“treponema pallidum”.
6. Reference no. 6. “Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Enero 2013;37(1):38-46.” This should be corrected.
7. The Introduction should be restructured into two or three paragraphs, not as many as the
current form.
8. Methods section. The study design and inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written as
text, not as bullet points.
9. Sections of 1.5 to 2 microns for immunohistochemistry. This is extremely thin. Any reason
for this?
10. Any need for antigen retrieval?
11.  Professional English editing is needed to correct numerous grammatical and typographic
errors in the text and tables.
12. How many among the 54 patients were tested positive for HIV should be specified as the
authors mentioned that 13 patients had not been tested.
13. The format of the references is inconsistent. The reviewer could not find Reference no. 21
in PubMed using the information provided in the text.
Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL DETECTION OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS IN
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIOUS PROCTITIS
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
1. Abstract. Methods section. What was considered as risky sexual activity should be specified.
2. 33.3% should be corrected to 33%. The total number of cases with IHC and the positive case
number should be provided.
3. Abstract. “We retrospectively applied immunohistochemistry with paraffin blocks and a
mouse monoclonal antibody (Santa Crutz Biotechnology) for the identification of Chlamydia
trachomatis”.
4. What was HH should be specified.
5. It’s “Chlamydia trachomatis” and “Treponema pallidum” not “clamydia trachomatis” and
“treponema pallidum”.
6. Reference no. 6. “Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Enero 2013;37(1):38-46.” This should be corrected.
7. The Introduction should be restructured into two or three paragraphs, not as many as the
current form.
8. Methods section. The study design and inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written as
text, not as bullet points.
9. Sections of 1.5 to 2 microns for immunohistochemistry. This is extremely thin. Any reason
for this?
10. Any need for antigen retrieval?
11.  Professional English editing is needed to correct numerous grammatical and typographic
errors in the text and tables.
12. How many among the 54 patients were tested positive for HIV should be specified as the
authors mentioned that 13 patients had not been tested.
13. The format of the references is inconsistent. The reviewer could not find Reference no. 21
in PubMed using the information provided in the text.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL DETECTION OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS IN
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIOUS PROCTITIS
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
1. Abstract. Methods section. What was considered as risky sexual activity should be specified.
2. 33.3% should be corrected to 33%. The total number of cases with IHC and the positive case
number should be provided.
3. Abstract. “We retrospectively applied immunohistochemistry with paraffin blocks and a
mouse monoclonal antibody (Santa Crutz Biotechnology) for the identification of Chlamydia
trachomatis”.
4. What was HH should be specified.
5. It’s “Chlamydia trachomatis” and “Treponema pallidum” not “clamydia trachomatis” and
“treponema pallidum”.
6. Reference no. 6. “Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Enero 2013;37(1):38-46.” This should be corrected.
7. The Introduction should be restructured into two or three paragraphs, not as many as the
current form.
8. Methods section. The study design and inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written as
text, not as bullet points.
9. Sections of 1.5 to 2 microns for immunohistochemistry. This is extremely thin. Any reason
for this?
10. Any need for antigen retrieval?
11.  Professional English editing is needed to correct numerous grammatical and typographic
errors in the text and tables.
12. How many among the 54 patients were tested positive for HIV should be specified as the
authors mentioned that 13 patients had not been tested.
13. The format of the references is inconsistent. The reviewer could not find Reference no. 21
in PubMed using the information provided in the text.
assistant