Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 4Date:10 January 2013
Reviewer: Jeffrey T.-J. Huang
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. [previous comment 2]: The use of cut-offs based on other studies is not
appropriate. The paper cited (e.g. Datta et al, JPR) did evaluate their own
technical variability in order to define the cut-off values. These cut-offs, however,
is lab/individual dependent and are required to be tested statistically in their own
lab. This is particularly important when relatively moderate differences (~40%)
were found and when some discrepancies at the peptide levels are significant (as
shown in the supplementary tables).
2. Given that there is some uncertainly regarding the results (from previous
comment 1), the abstract should be modified so results that have been validated
should be emphasized instead of focusing the technology.
3. [Comment 3b]: Even the authors did not observe the destruction of bile ducts,
it remains to be a valuable information and should be included in the discussion.
Minor
A typo in the last paragraph of Discussion- “antibododies” should read
“antibodies”.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 4Date:10 January 2013
Reviewer: Jeffrey T.-J. Huang
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. [previous comment 2]: The use of cut-offs based on other studies is not
appropriate. The paper cited (e.g. Datta et al, JPR) did evaluate their own
technical variability in order to define the cut-off values. These cut-offs, however,
is lab/individual dependent and are required to be tested statistically in their own
lab. This is particularly important when relatively moderate differences (~40%)
were found and when some discrepancies at the peptide levels are significant (as
shown in the supplementary tables).
2. Given that there is some uncertainly regarding the results (from previous
comment 1), the abstract should be modified so results that have been validated
should be emphasized instead of focusing the technology.
3. [Comment 3b]: Even the authors did not observe the destruction of bile ducts,
it remains to be a valuable information and should be included in the discussion.
Minor
A typo in the last paragraph of Discussion- “antibododies” should read
“antibodies”.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 4Date:10 January 2013
Reviewer: Jeffrey T.-J. Huang
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. [previous comment 2]: The use of cut-offs based on other studies is not
appropriate. The paper cited (e.g. Datta et al, JPR) did evaluate their own
technical variability in order to define the cut-off values. These cut-offs, however,
is lab/individual dependent and are required to be tested statistically in their own
lab. This is particularly important when relatively moderate differences (~40%)
were found and when some discrepancies at the peptide levels are significant (as
shown in the supplementary tables).
2. Given that there is some uncertainly regarding the results (from previous
comment 1), the abstract should be modified so results that have been validated
should be emphasized instead of focusing the technology.
3. [Comment 3b]: Even the authors did not observe the destruction of bile ducts,
it remains to be a valuable information and should be included in the discussion.
Minor
A typo in the last paragraph of Discussion- “antibododies” should read
“antibodies”.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant