Reviewer’s report
Title: Evaluation of apoptosis and angiogenesis in ectopic and eutopic stromal cells of patients with
endometriosis compared to non-endometriotic controls
Version: 1 Date: 11 Oct 2019
Reviewer: Jacqueline Donoghue
Reviewer's report:
I found this article very interesting and a valuable contribution to endometriosis research.  
1. It was disappointing not to see the flowcytometry results or the immunofluorescence results.  These
data would add value to the paper as they demonstrate your capacity to perform the work and allows
the reader to see what the data.  When these results are simply dismissed as a reference it leads to the
question of was the work actually performed.  You have gone to the trouble of writing the methods for
these data and then don't present them.  I strongly urge the inclusion of at least one figure that shows
some of this data.
2. The presentation of the RT-PCR data is not suitable.  The result statement was  "significantly higher
gene expression levels of Bcl-2 (Figure 1a) and Bcl-xL (Figure 1b) in EESCs compared to EuESCs or
CESCs (p<0.01)."  The statement indicates that the gene of interest will be presented with three data
points  and  a  one-way  ANOV A statistical  analysis  has  been  performed.   However,  the  statistics
performed has not been described, the bar graphs describe E v Eu etc and the error bars a so large that
there cannot possibly be any significance.  I strongly suggest adding the statistical analysis done to the
methods section and ensure the data presented is the mean of each sample analysised (EESC, EUESCs,
CESCs) +/- standard error of mean.  If the data has been normalised to a control sample or eutopic
endo or other, make sure this information is also contained in the methods section as data analysis and
presentation.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in 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 that 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
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal