JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-35 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of resveratrol on alcohol induced mortality and liver lesions in mice Title: 
 1  18 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Vladislav Eybl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Paper with new findings useful for practise and further research 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
Complete literature references with papers published in 2006, results from paragraph "Laboratory findings" 
would be better to put into the figures or tables. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) Improve the explanatory note to figures, more details and necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-35 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of resveratrol on alcohol induced mortality and liver lesions in mice Title: 
 1  25 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Carani V. V Anuradha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have investigated the effect of resveratrol on alcohol-induced 
mortality and liver damage in mice. For this liver function enzymes, inflammatory molecules and histology are presented. Points of concern 
1. Introduction does not focus on the need/importance for the study and is 
vague. 2. What is the amount of alcohol and resveratrol consumed by the animals? This should be determined from fluid intake. Alcohol-treated animals drank 
less water and this could decrease the amount of alcohol & resveratrol 
consumed as compared to those not given alcohol. 3. Photographs to show histological changes are needed. Data presented show only mild changes as presented in discussion, which are not consistent with 
high mortality (survival 20%) at the 7th week. 
4. The number of animals used for each study (biochemical, histology, 
mortality) should be specified. 5. The appropriate dosage of resveratrol for human consumption as an outcome 
of the study could be suggested while considering prophylaxis. 
6. What is the reason for the absence of TNF-&#61537; in plasma in response to ethanol? This should be discussed along with the rise in pro-inflammatory cytokine, IL-1. What are the consequences of a rise in IL-1? 
7. The authors should consider and report data on the mechanisms by which 
ethanol could reduce survival other than malnutrition. Since some of the benefits of resveratrol suggested in the discussion are a block in nitric oxide production, COX-2 and NF&#61547;&#61538; pathway. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-35 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of resveratrol on alcohol induced mortality and liver lesions in mice Title: 
 2  29 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Carani V. V Anuradha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have given adequate reply to the queries. The following revisions are further recommended. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Major Compulsory Revision 
a) Statistical significance of mean differences are not shown in figure 2 and 
figure 3 (standard error bars). 
b) The authors need to mark the statistical significance of differences in 
mean values between the experimental groups in the figures and in the legend. 
c) In figure 4 the interleukin concentration for Resveratrol group is not given. 
d) The whole of the text requires extensive edition. The language is unacceptable. 
e) In Discussion section, what is meant by “reducir la mortalidad de los 
ratones(30).Ademas”? 
f) Histological photographs of the rest of the groups are not provided. 
g) The authors have suggested several potential mechanisms (oxidative stress, 
NF?B,NO production) for resveratrol action and alcohol toxicity which are 
not tested. It is beyond the scope to examine all such mechanisms, authors may 
cut short these speculative statements and discuss them briefly. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-34 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 1  15 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edison Roberto R Parise Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This article from Poynard et al. is another attempt to find a non-invasive 
marker to identify patients with NASH among those with NAFLD. In their 
previous work (Ratziu et al, 2006) the Fibrotest could identify advanced 
fibrosis in NAFLD but failed in differentiate patients with bland steatosis from those with steatohepatitis. In this study, they create a new panel of biomarkers, named NashTest. This new test according to the authors “ 
combined age, gender, the 6 parameters of Fibrotest, plus weight, height, 
AST, serum glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol and ST” . Since age, gender 
, BMI, AST, serum glucose, triglycerides and cholesterol are parameters 
from ST , the reader became confused in understanding whether there is a 
repetition of such parameters or (what seems to be the case) if ST is 
considered independently as one single parameter in NashTest. The authors 
should make clearer how they combined such parameters. 
The alcohol consumption adopted in this article is higher than the accepted 
one for the NAFLD diagnosis, but the author’s arguments in the Discussion are convincing. 
There is sufficient number of patients and controls for statistical analysis 
and the data are extensively analyzed. The title and abstract are in accordance with the findings and the paper is very well written. Therefore, we think that this manuscript can be accepted with minor 
modifications 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-34 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 2  18 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edison Roberto R Parise Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors made clear the construction of the NASHTest and the importance of each individual parameters. So we think that the manuscript can be accepted without any further review. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest 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´ below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-34 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (NashTest) for the prediction of NASH in Patients with Title: 
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 2  25 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 David Kleiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded to previous comments by including additional text and figures that round out the paper and provide important information about the range of values obtained for NASHTest in their patient population. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. The authors use of the NAS has been somewhat clarified by the addition of text in the Methods and Discussion sections. In the paragraph in the Methods section (p. 10, beginning “We used two definitions of 
NASH…”, it is still a little unclear that equating the NAS to a diagnosis is a convention of this study and not 
something from the original paper. However, the discussion section makes this difference clear, so I leave up to the authors as to whether they want to polish that paragraph more. 
 Accept after discretionary 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
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-33 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The fatty liver index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population Title: 
 2  16 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Helena Cortez-Pinto Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In the present study, the authors developed an algorithm based on BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides 
and GGT, that was then used to develop a fatty liver index, to detect the presence of fatty liver. The authors 
take advantage of the Dionysos database, to perform the present study, with a very significant number of 
patients. Devising this fatty liver index may be very useful in clinical practise, although it can be argued that 
at the present time, doing ultrasound is almost always included in the investigation of any patient suspected 
of liver disease. However, as mentioned by the authors, it may be useful in a general practise, to select 
patients for doing liver ultrasonography or in research to select patients for epidemiological studies, although it is a formula that can only be used through the use of a palm top or some other computerized 
system, and still has the problem of having a grey area (between 30 and 60) where no conclusions can be 
drawn. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1) In what relates to ethanol intake, the fact that the authors used the mean daily ethanol intake, and no correlation was found with the presence of fatty liver is not surprising, since it is the minority who have a 
high alcohol intake that will have fatty liver, so the assertion in the Discussion that “Ethanol intake was not 
associated with FL in any of the models” is not entirely correct. 2) In Table 1, it is not clearly stated what are the numbers in parenthesis; besides although in the legend it is written: “values are medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables and number of subjects for 
categorical variables”, I do not see any interquartile ranges. The table should be made more clear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-33 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The fatty liver index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population Title: 
 2  16 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Elisabetta E Bugianesi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Bedogni et al is aimed at developing an algorithm to predict liver steatosis in the general 
population. 216 subjects with non-viral suspected liver disease (SLD) were selected from the data base of 
the Dionysos study and matched with 280 subjects without SLD. 
All participants had been evaluated for liver steatosis on ultrasound and for several anthropometric, clinical 
and biochemical parameters. A composite “fatty liver index” (FLI) derived from BMI, waist circumference, 
triglycerides and GGT is obtained, to predict the presence (SP=86%) or the absence (SN=97%) of liver steatosis. 
The study is conducted on a large sample of subjects from the general population, extensively investigated. 
All the parameters are carefully analysed by appropriate statistic methods, the results are clear and 
conclusions supported by the data 
The main strength of this study is that the FLI is derived on sound data from a large sample size of the general population and is based on parameters easily available in clinical practice. 
Limitations include the lack of a validation group and of a cost effectiveness analysis versus US screening. 
Nevertheless, FLI may represent a valid tool in decision making during the screening of NAFLD. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-32 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Presentation of Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Associated with Left Colon Cancer: Title: 
A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 2  12 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Laszlo Lakatos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This study case report reporting on the association of appendiceal mucocele and left colon cancer in a 
70-year old male patient. The mucocele was presenting as a right inguinal hernia and localized pseudomyxoma peritonei was found due to the rupture of the cyst. The case was successfully managed surgically. 
Compulsory Comments; 
1. The conclusion of the abstract that the â €œincidence of synchronous colon cancer increases in patients 
with appendiceal mucocelesâ € is not really supported by the only case presented here. In the discussion 
authors also state that there were ten other cases operated on due to appendiceal mucocele in their 
practice in the last 13 years and none of them had coexisting colorectal cancer. Thus the conclusion of the abstract have to be changed according to this. In addition, authors could report on all the mucocele cases instead of just reporting on this only case. 
2.The number of the figures should be reduced. One showing the CT results and another one with the 
macroscopic and histology (A and B) picture should be given. 
Minor essential revisions; 
1. The English needs some revision. 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-32 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Presentation of Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Associated with Left Colon Cancer: Title: 
A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 2  2 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexandra Tsaroucha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting case report presenting a rare case of ruptured appendiceal cystadenoma with localized pseudomyxoma peritonei presenting as right inguinal hernia in a patient with colon cancer. Our 
recommendation is to ACCEPT the paper subject to MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISION based on the following 
comments: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The title should be changed to describe the case more accurately. The following is suggested: 
â€œRuptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Presenting as Right Inguinal Hernia in a Patient with Colon Cancer: A Case Report and Review of Literatureâ€ . 
2. Line 11 of the case report description: â€œWe noted that no oral contrast media was leaking from the 
cecum into the peritoneal cavity(Figure 3).â€  Explain more. What did you use? 
3. Line 5 of the discussion: â€œA second tumor originating from gastrointestinal tract, ovary, breast and kidney has been reported [12]â€ . Rewrite sentence with more explanation. 
4. Line 9 of the discussion: â€œWe reviewed our ten patients with appendiceal mucoceles receiving 
appendectomies during the past 13 years. Three of them had presented as ruptured lesions. None of the 
other patients was diagnosed to have colonic cancer. The concomitant pathologies are often clinically silent 
[1]. This patient was also asymptomatic before the rupture of the mucocele and its presentation as right 
inguinal hernia.â€  This description should be made more clear and be expanded. You mention more 
patients than the presented case and explanations should be more detailed. The conclusion from the study of these additional patients is not clear. 5. The last sentence of the discussion, which acts as conclusions of the study, should be a separate 
paragraph and should not contain references. Move these references (25, 26, 27) further up in the 
discussion. 6. The annotated text follows in the next page. Address all comments. English has problems and should be fixed before second submittal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-32 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Presenting as Right Inguinal Hernia in a Patient with Left Colon Title: 
Cancer: A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 4  4 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexandra Tsaroucha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed all the comments provided in our first review of the article and provided a 
justification of the revisions. Therefore, after re-reviewing the article our recommendation is to ACCEPT 
WITHOUT REVISION. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-31 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Bifidobacterium infantis strains with and without a combination of Oligofructose and Inulin (OFI) Title: 
attenuate inflammation in DSS-induced colitis in rats 
 1  5 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Monica Boirivant Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
OFI administration without the addition of Bifidobacteria appears to give comparable results to the 
association of OFI with Bifidobacteria or administration of Bifidobacteria alone in all the tests utilized for the evaluation of the effect of treatment on DSS colitis. The addition of Bifidobacterium DSM 15159 to OFI is 
necessary only in obtaining a significant reduction of lipid peroxidation. This issue might be included in the 
conclusions and adequately discussed. The title might be changed accordingly 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-31 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Bifidobacterium infantis strains with and without a combination of Oligofructose and Inulin (OFI) Title: 
attenuate inflammation in DSS-induced colitis in rats 
 2  6 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Francisco Guarner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper has improved after revision. There are no further revisions required. 
 Accept without revision 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
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-30 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen Title: 
 3  3 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Claus Schaefer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors generated transgenic mice carrying the R122H mutation of the cationic trypsinogen gen. 
Furthermore, the authors investigated the phenotype of this mice under untreated and cerulein-stimulated conditions, both in a model of acute and chronic pancreatitis. This study focuses on a highly interesting mechanism. Unfortunatly, the transgenic mice carrying the R22H mutation of the trypsinogen gen failed to 
develop a spontaneous form of pancreatitis and showed only a slightly more severe form of pancreatitis. 
The experimental design of the study is excellent and the experiments are well performed. Nevertheless, there are some concerns about this study. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1. The authors show data that after induction of cerulein pancreatitis amylase and lipase were elevated. The 
data for the cytokine levels MCP-1 and IL-6 as well as for IL-10, IL12p70, TNF and IFN-gamma are general 
lacking. These data should be provided either in part by figures or more notable as a table. 
2. Page 9 third paragraph: the histological data and the score for the severety are not shown. Here, an 
proven example would be helpful. 
3. The authors show in figure 3 four control animals but only one trabsgenic animal. I'm wondering whether 
the authors have established only one transgenic line. Do all investigated animals show similar low levels of protein expression? 
4. Apoptosis and NFkappaB activation are crucial for the severity of experimental pancreatitis. Are there any 
differences between non-transgenic and transgenic animals? 
5. Figure 6a: Scores for edema, infiltration, vacuolization and necrosis from the two different animal groups 
should be shown. 
6. The discussion should be rewritten. The attempt should be, to discuss the results in the scientific context 
and not to summarize the results. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-30 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen Title: 
 3  31 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Miklos Sahin-Toth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a very important study, which demonstrates that low level transgenic expression of human cationic 
trypsinogen with the R122H mutation does not cause spontaneous pancreatitis in mice. Furthermore, the 
transgene does not sensitize the mice to artificially induced pancreatitis to a significant extent. What makes 
this report so valuable is that anecdotal reports about unsuccessful transgenic mouse models of hereditary 
pancreatitis have been circulating the pancreatic research community for years, but no data has ever been published. This study suggests that the R122H mutation per se is not sufficient to precipitate pancreatitis, but high level expression of the mutated trypsinogen is also necessary. Overall, the manuscript is well 
written, the results are clearly described and the small effect observed with the R122H mutation is not 
over-interpreted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
My only suggestion concerns data presentation. In Fig 2b, the legend does not match whatâ €™s shown on 
the picture. This needs to be corrected. In Fig 3, addition of more labels would help the reader. Thus, in lane 
1, labels should indicate â €œhuman cationic trypsinogenâ € and â €œhuman anionic trypsinogenâ €. On 
the right side of the picture, â €œmouse anionic trypsinogensâ € and â €œmouse cationic trypsinogenâ € 
should be indicated. The title of the picture says "blot" twice (immunoblot blot). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-30 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen Title: 
 3  7 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Martin Fernandez-Zapico Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In the article entitled â€œCharacterization of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic 
trypsinogenâ€  by Selig et al., the authors presented data describing the effect of expressing R122H 
human cationic trypsinogen mutant in pancreatic acinar cells using the rat elastase promoter. Interestingly, R122H transgenic mice were normal with no histologic difference with wild type control animals. No spontaneous development of pancreatitis, only an elevated pancreatic lipase was found in R122H mice. 
Induction of pancreatitis using cerulein resulted in a slightly more severe pancreatitis in R122H animals. 
However, amylase, lipase, and the cytokine levels were similar to controls. From these observations, the authors conclude that this little or no effect (failure to develop a spontaneous pancreatitis or slightly more severe cerulein-induced pancreatitis) was due to the low expression of the transgene in the mouse 
pancreas. These findings presented in this manuscript are potentially interesting and may give us some 
insight into the role of this mutation in pathogenesis of hereditary pancreatitis. However, the manuscript is still premature and requires the authors to further characterize the R122H transgenic animal before the manuscript is considered for publication in this journal. 
Major Revisions 
The authors recently published (BBRC 2005) that expression R122H mutant reduces cell viability and 
induces caspase-3 activity in acinar cells in vitro. These cellular and biochemical events must be explored 
in the transgenic animals. These experiments should be done under basal and stimulated conditions. 
Lack of differences in activation of the trypsionogen could be the explanation of this lack of phenotype. The 
trypsinogen expression should be accompanied by the level of activation of trypsinogen in control and 
transgenic animals under basal conditions or treatment with cerulein.Also, together with the levels of pancreatic enzymes under basal conditions, the authors should show the histology of the transgenic animals. 
Minor Revisions: 
The figures showing the establishment of the transgenic line (1, 2 and 3) should be incorporated into a single one. Results on the expression and integration of the transgene should be shown in more than one 
transgenic line. Also the quality of the picture should be improved in figure 2b as well as 3. Figure 2a legend 
requires a better description of the findings e.g. it is missing the description of line 1 and 2. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-30 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen Title: 
 4  10 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Claus Schaefer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors followed all suggested revisions. Thereby, the manuscript improved and is now suitable for 
publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 2, last paragraph: delete "to" in front of in comparison. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-30 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen Title: 
 4  11 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Martin Fernandez-Zapico Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I believe the work has significantly improved since the first submission. The authors address the relevant 
comments from the reviewers so, in my opinion, I consider the work acceptable for publication in this 
present format. 
 Accept without revision 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 interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-29 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Surgical treatment and prognostic analysis for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the Title: 
small intestine: Before the era of Imatinib Mesylate 
 1  29 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 ivo De Wever Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
GeneralThe authors examined prognostic factors in a large series(100 cases) of gastrointestinal 
stromal tumors of the smaal intestine.The data are interesting because it concerns well defined cases (KIT positive)and because a large number of clinical, histopathological and immunohistochemical factors were examined in univariate and multivariate analysis. 
I have no problems concerning data and methods. 
Their findings are somewhat different from the prognostic stratification as given in the consensus report(Fletcher in Human Pathol.2002)Tumor size is not a significant factor for overall survival in their series but looking at table 2 one wonders wheter the difference would not reach significance 
when tumors smaller than 5 cm are compared with tumors larger than 5 cm. 
I have a problem with the english writing and consider revision essential.Also the reference list is not 
consistent in the ordering of family names and first names. The article is worth publishing after these corrections have been made. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-29 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Surgical treatment and prognostic analysis for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the small Title: 
intestine: Before the era of Imatinib Mesylate 
 1  8 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jonathan Trent Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript describes the outcomes of patients with small intestine GISTs treated prior to imatinib. It is of historical interest but has been 
described in prior publications (DeMatteo et al, Ng et al) There are 
several notable findings that diverge from other publications. Interestingly, tumor size was not a prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. This should be explained by the authors if this article is to 
be published. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1. Paragraph 1, line 7: Please provide reference - (uncontrolled anti-apoptotic effect) 
2. Needs extensive grammatical editing throughout the manuscript. 
3. Paragraph 2, line 1: Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment 
for "primary" GIST, not all GISTs. Imatinib is the treatment for 
metastatic GIST. Rephrase ?"for primary GISTS" 
Results 
Clinical characteristics: 
4. Paragraph 2: Any evidence of a familial pattern of GIST in this 
patient with multiple small intestine lesions? 
5. Paragraph 2, line 4: 
"Panendoscopy" ? please define 
Treatments and Outcomes 
6. Paragraph 2, line 1: 
Please define"Curative resection" here & subsequently. Do the authors mean complete resection? 
Discussion 
7. Why is tumor size not an independent predictor of OS/OFS by 
multivariate analysis? Please comment on a possible explanation. 
Table 2 
8. Please comment on the interesting trends toward a difference in 
DFS/OS by Gender, Operation time and Tumor size. 
Table 5 
10. Please comment on why the author's finding that tumor size does not 
impact OS/DSF. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-29 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Surgical treatment and prognostic analysis for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the small Title: 
intestine: Before the era of Imatinib Mesylate 
 2  10 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jonathan Trent Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have re-reviewed the author's manuscript and response. 
The response to my critique addresses the issues I have raised. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-28 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A case report on a patient suffering from recurrent vomiting episodes, whose condition improved Title: 
markedly during pregnancy and breast feeding 
 1  7 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Caroline Maltepe Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1.Would like more specific details on the case during pregnancy and breastfeeding: a. How many episodes of vomiting did the patient have prior to pregnancy? b. When did she stop cisapride? Prior to pregnancy? During pregnancy? At how many weeks gestation? 
Etc... 
c. How long after discontinuing breastfeeding did the vomiting reoccur in both pregnancies? How many episodes of vomiting between pregnancies? How long did she breastfeed with both pregnancies? d. Did she change her dietary habits in pregnancy? And post-pregnancy? 
e. Did she have nausea in both pregnancies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 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: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-28 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A case report on a patient suffering from recurrent vomiting episodes, whose condition improved Title: 
markedly during pregnancy and breast feeding 
 4  16 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Caroline Maltepe Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
no revisions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-27 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Helicobacter pylori Genotypes Identified in Gastric Biopsy Specimens Title: 
 1  4 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Elvira Garza GonzÃ¡lez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors report the H. pylori genotypes in Jordanian patients. 
As this information has not been published before, its publication could be interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions 
Will be very interesting that the authors include the gastrointestinal pathologies and its possible correlation 
with the H. pylori genotypes. 
The authors found that 110 biopsies were positive for H. pylori and among them, 20 were vacA s1 and 24 
were vacA s1. What about the 66 remaining positive samples? 
All H. pylori genomes have a vacA gene with either s1 or s2 allele. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions The abstract is not clear in the last sentence of the results section. 
The English should be carefully revised 
Will be easy to review the results if the statistical analysis is showed in each result, not in a separate paragraph. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 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: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-27 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Helicobacter pylori Genotypes Identified in Gastric Biopsy Specimens from Jordanian patients Title: 
 4  28 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Elvira Garza GonzÃ¡lez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-27 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Helicobacter pylori Genotypes Identified in Gastric Biopsy Specimens from Jordanian patients Title: 
 5  13 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Barbara Schneider Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is much improved, and can be accepted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
abstract, line 12, and also page 8, line 4, and page 11, line 13, change “correlated” to “associated”, which is 
appropriate for the statistical tests used. 
Page 6, line 16: Change “patient’s population” to “patient population”. Discussion: 4th sentence is a run-on sentence and needs editorial assistance; a semicolon after “(68.2%) 
should fix it. 
Page 9, line 14: Change “equally detected” to “detected in approximately equal numbers”. 
page 11, first line. Unclear sentence. Does the writer mean that there were no s1, m1 and iceA2 biopsies? If 
so, the meaning of the P value is unclear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.