Reviewer's report 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Mark Worwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Willis et al 
This paper is an extension of earlier studies involving fewer patients from Norwich. The analysis of 
144 cases allows a much close estimate of penetrance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Detailed comments 
1. Page 4, para 2, line 5: I am surprised that the authors are not quoting their work on arthritis at this 
point. 
2. Page 5, para 2: presumably any patients referred from Norwich to Cambridge have not been 
counted twice (later section of text implies this). 
3. Page 5, para 4: is there a reference to the method for extracting DNA from tissue sections? 
4. Page 19, Table 1: is there any reason for the discrepancy in forward and reverse primer 
concentrations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Mark Worwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Willis et al 
This paper is an extension of earlier studies involving fewer patients from Norwich. The analysis of 
144 cases allows a much close estimate of penetrance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Detailed comments 
1. Page 4, para 2, line 5: I am surprised that the authors are not quoting their work on arthritis at this 
point. 
2. Page 5, para 2: presumably any patients referred from Norwich to Cambridge have not been 
counted twice (later section of text implies this). 
3. Page 5, para 4: is there a reference to the method for extracting DNA from tissue sections? 
4. Page 19, Table 1: is there any reason for the discrepancy in forward and reverse primer 
concentrations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable 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 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Mark Worwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Willis et al 
This paper is an extension of earlier studies involving fewer patients from Norwich. The analysis of 
144 cases allows a much close estimate of penetrance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Detailed comments 
1. Page 4, para 2, line 5: I am surprised that the authors are not quoting their work on arthritis at this 
point. 
2. Page 5, para 2: presumably any patients referred from Norwich to Cambridge have not been 
counted twice (later section of text implies this). 
3. Page 5, para 4: is there a reference to the method for extracting DNA from tissue sections? 
4. Page 19, Table 1: is there any reason for the discrepancy in forward and reverse primer 
concentrations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant