All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for carefully addressing reviewer's comments and revising the manuscript accordingly. We are looking forward to receiving your future work with this unique SNAP test.
Sorry for the delay as we were waiting a long time on one reviewer.
Two reviewers have now looked at this revision (the 2nd reviewer has been unable to supply comments due to computer issues, but I have been in correspondence with them).
Both reviewers feel that the article is well-written, with sufficient background, description of method, results description and appropriate discussion. The concern is that the present paper only compared two established, even commercialized methods for bile acid detection. If authors could categorize these 56 "dog patients" to show their bile acid values using the new method for normal and the abnormal bile acids levels associated with these "dog patients" at the different stages of the disease, this would be a good manuscript.
The article is written in an appropriate language and format, with sufficient background, description of method, and results. The only concern that the reviewer has is that the present manuscript only conducted the comparison of two established, even commercialized methods for bile acid detection. The novelty and significance of the present study is greatly limited.
The experiments were design properly.
The data is statistically sound and controlled.
Both reviewers feel this work has merit and point out a number of questions which should be addressed point by point in a detailed reply letter.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
More information on the chemical mechanism of the SNAP test should be provided in the introduction. Comparison between quantitative and semi-quantitative test for serum bile acids should be provided in the discussion.
The article was well-presented with standardized structure, with sufficient explanation of the goal of the study, experimental design, and interpretation of results.
The experiments were designed carefully with sufficient description in methods and data analysis. The only suggestion I have is that the authors can add a study using allotments of same sample and assay them in different days to test stability of the assays as a function of time.
The data is statistically sound and controlled, the conclusion was appropriately stated and connected to the original goal proposed.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.