Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-21 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Modulation of RANTES expression by HCV core protein in liver derived cell lines Title: 
 3  20 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 alfredo garzino demo Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Ruggeri et al. have revised their manuscript following most of the feedback that they received on their 
original submission. I find their response, which include appropriate statistical analyses, and revision satisfactory and do not have major revisions to request, as i find that the revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscipt. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Page 3, Abstract conclusion section: This sentence is not clear and should be reworded. My suggestion for 
a reworded conclusion reads: "HCV core protein have opposite effects on the expression of RANTES in different cell types in vitro, possibly reflecting a similar scenario in different microenvironments in vivo". 
However, this might not be exactly what the authors are inferring. 
Page 5, third paragraph: "NF90 belongs to a family [...] (evolutionary related to the flavivirus family [...]" 
"evolutionary" should be changed to "phylogenetically" 
Page 10, last sentence of the Methods section: "The statistical analysis was performed by SPSS (Inc)" 
would read better "Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPSS Inc)" 
In the result section, some parts could be made clearer 
for example, on Page 11: "Despite reduction in RANTES expression was detected also in Hepswx cells as compared to the parental cell line, suggesting a possible contribution of constitutive transfection on RANTES level, however the 
differences in percentage of cells positive for RANTES expression among Hep39 as compared to Hepswx 
cell lines was statistically significant (p<005). In contrast, flow cytometry quantitation of RANTES protein in CH39 cell lines showed (Figures 2A and 2B) a 2.5 fold increase in percentage (16.6% ± 2.9%) of cells positive for RANTES expression, as compared with the CHWT control cells (6.7% ± 1.2%). 
The differences observed between CH39 and control cell lines were significant according to the p value 
(<0.05) in a t Test’s." 
my suggested rewording is: 
"Reduction in RANTES expression was detected also in Hepswx cells as compared to the parental cell line, 
suggesting a possible contribution of constitutive transfection on RANTES level. However the differences in 
percentage of cells positive for RANTES expression IN Hep39 as compared to Hepswx cell lines was 
statistically significant (p<005). In contrast, flow cytometry quantitation of RANTES protein in CH39 cell lines 
showed (Figures 2A and 2B) a statistically significant 2.5 fold increase in percentage of cells positive for 
RANTES expression, as compared with the CHWT control cells (16.6% ± 2.9% Vs. 6.7% ± 1.2%, p<0.05)". 
Page 18, Conclusions, first paragraph. Here too, the first sentence of the conclusion is not clear, see my 
note above regarding the abstract section. In addition, the last sentence could be modified in "Our data suggest a role, that needs to be confirmed in vivo" for viral (HCV) proteins in contributing to immune evasion by tumor cells" 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
I recommend having the manuscript read by a mother-tongue english reader in case there are any grammar 
glitches that i might have missed. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests