Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01447-0 (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Discovery and validation of mucosal TNF expression combined with histological score - a 
biomarker for personalized treatment in ulcerative colitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 13 Aug 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Reviewer's report  
 
Title: Discovery and validation of mucosal TNF expression  combined with histological score - a 
biomarker for personalized treatment in ulcerative colitis  
MS Number and Version: BMGE -D-20-00476, 1  
Date: 12.08.2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The content of the subject, "mucosal TNF expression combined with histological sc ore being used 
as a biomarker for personalized treatment in ulcerative colitis" is promising and has quite a value 
of interest. This is a professionally written and well -structured manuscript and I have some minor 
revisions to improve the manuscript:  
 
- Minor Revisions  
* Materials and methods (Page 7): The authors have another methods title in methods 
section and they only talk about the control group and feacal calprotectin here. I would recommend 
author to put the information about the control group in the  first paragraph of materials and 
methods before "cohorts examined title". And get rid of the second method title.  
* Page 7 line 39 authors said highly standardized sampling methods were used to collect 
patient material. I would recommend them to explain w hat they did for standardisation. (Again, it 
could be in the first section after patient and control data before cohort examined title.)  
* Authors mentioned that they measured faecal calprotectin, however they did not present 
any cut off for faecal calprot ectin. Did they also use calprotectin as a remission or inflammation 
biomarker? Or did they only measure it for comparison. Faecal calprotectin needs a bit more 
clarification  
* Authors mentioned some result that they did not show in the paper. I would rec ommend 
them to present these results as an additional file.  
* I kindly think all the table and figures should be understandable without going back to 
the main text. I would recommend authors to give short explanation under the tables if necessary, 
instead of saying see the text for further details.  However, I think tables and figures are already 
clear, maybe they could just remove the sentence saying "see the text fur further details."  
* There are * and ** signs in table 2 but no explanation under the tabl e regarding to that.  
* There are no * or ** signs in table 4 but yet there is an explanation under the table?  
* Please check all the explanations under the table, some abbreviations are missing  
 
 
 
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already register ed 
at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able  to re cognize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit of 
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify  your record as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors t o identify candidate reviewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/ab out/terms  
 
Yes 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may i n any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 any 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 interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests 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 details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available und er an Open Access  
Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published  report have been included as confidential comments  to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide wh ether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish 
your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name wi th my report. 
(default)  
 
Is the study des ign appropriate to answer the research question (i ncluding the use of appropriate 
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?  
 
Yes 
 
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?  
 
Yes 
 
Is the use of statis tics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?  
 
Yes 
 
Is the presentation of the work clear?  
 
Yes 
 
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gel s and blots) free from apparent 
manipulation?  
 
Yes