Reviewer1: Horst Thiermann
Thank you so much for your kinly effort in review of our manuscript titled ” Loss of
Expression of TGF-βs and their receptors in chronic skin lesion induced by sulfur
mustard in comparison with chronic contact dermatitis patients” .
1. Regarding to your first valuable comment “Within the results a large number of
statistical evaluations is being cited, but no statistical methods have been
defined. Please note that comparison of prevalences requires appropriate
statistic consideration”
Unfortunately one paragraph concerning to
statistical analysis was missed, so this paragraph add to methods and
materials.
2. According to your good comments in materials” the weight of biopsies, the
amount of chloroform added, the centrifugation velocity throughout the
extraction process, amount of RNAase free water used for elution source
and purity of chemicals added.
3. Considering to your comments in result part, All data are correct and there is
no mistake in results. Although mean values with 10-20 folds difference
seems to be significant (p value <0.05) but p value is also affected by the
number of samples and the range of similarity between samples results in
each group. The p value of TGF-B1 and TGF-B2 may be significant if the
number of cases is more than this study.
Skin biopsy is an invasive approach so we should notice to medical ethics
considerations and cases satisfaction. This consideration restricted us in
the volume of cases particularly in normal group.
The quantity of TGF-B1 and TGF-B2 in chronic contact dermatitis patients
is to some extent more than normal group but the quantity of TGF-B
receptor1 and TGF-B receptor2 in chronic contact dermatitis patients is to
some extent less than normal group. This may be seemed a little
confusing. But decrease in receptors level in chronic contact dermatitis
may explain ineffective action of TGF-Bs for suppressing of
inflammation.Also, the limited number of cases especially in normal group
may lead to these results.
4. Thank you so much for your List of detailed suggestions for revision. In addition
to improved all of them, we asked from one native speakers to edit our
manuscript.
5. About this consider: Please describe briefly how these symptoms were
examined, scored or otherwise quantified. After a careful examination, if
there are clincally noticible excoriation , Lichenification , Erythema and
Fissure it will be positive; If there are no excoriation , Lichenification ,
Erythema and Fissure it will be negative.
6.
Referee 2 comments:
Thank you so much for your valuable comments , Please find the responses as
following :
1. "The report should also be seen by a statistician as I have reservations about
the size of the control group and reservations about the explanation of the
statistical tools used in the paper (there are relatively few controls used in the
study compared to the biopsies from the other experimental groups). You are
right; we forgot to put the Statistical analysis paragraph in manuscript,
So this paragraph added to materials and methods.
2. Results for figure 1 have no error bars associated with them. In addition,
About error bar for figure 1, there is no need for error bar in this figure
because the number of positive results in this figure were expressed in
percent.
3. There are many errors in the list of references which require attention as
many of them do not appear to conform to the standard way of presenting
these in print. The list of references checked again and solved some
errors
4. And finally, the manuscript after revised according to your comments,
edited by a native speaker as a biomedical editor.