Submited on: 30 Nov 2012 03:26:38 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Nov 2012 08:32:05 PM GMT
 
Further Strong Evidence is Required
Posted by Prof. Kazuo Ishii on 26 Jan 2013 01:38:37 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Self organization of macromolecules in living cell is based on force of self gravity. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The author's claim is probably novel, but it is easy to be suggested by some inspiration. Therefore, it is difficult to consider that this claim is really novel. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, the author showed some papers including his owm ones.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No, the author did not enough evidence. I think it is very difficult to conduct experiments to confirm the author's theory. At least, the author should study some physical and chemical reactions in self-shaping of biological macromolecules. And the author should compare their effect. But I think it is difficult to show clear evidence.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    It is not a clinical trial.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No, there are not enough and not clear methodology.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    In the present, the author's theory is not common sense in organization of the biological macromolecules. So, the author should show the strong evidence to change the common sense.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes

  • How to cite:  Ishii K .Further Strong Evidence is Required[Review of the article 'Some More Gap Areas of Investigation on Exploring Affect of Invisible Force of Self Gravity in Living Mass ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002459
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Not Worthy of Publication.
Posted by Dr. Justin Fendos on 28 Dec 2012 08:57:19 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    With all due respect to the author, this article is not worthy of publication. The concept is interesting but as a biophysicist, I have not seen any evidence in support of this phenomenon nor does the article make any serious, concerted attempt to prove its existence. Many of the references are unacceptable, either self citations or links. I see no way this article can be reworked for publication as a serious scientific piece.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claim is novel, I suppose, but no serious evidence is offered in support. The critical figure is small and vaguely refers to MIT biochemists, bringing into question its authenticity. The link supplied as a reference also fails to support the claim desired by the author.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No. The references are vague, misleading, and inaccurate at best.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There is not real data to support the central claim of the existence of self gravity in cells.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No detailed methods are provided.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No detailed methods are provided and the references fail to explain any of the work that has supposedly done.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This article is virtually beyond repair unless serious data is shown to establish the phenomenon described.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. This work breaks most of the rules of what defines a science article.


  • Other Comments:

    I can not think of a single thing this article does well. It should be rejected immediately.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Membrane protein biophysics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 4;109(36):14422-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212665109. Epub 2012 Aug 20.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Fendos J .Not Worthy of Publication.[Review of the article 'Some More Gap Areas of Investigation on Exploring Affect of Invisible Force of Self Gravity in Living Mass ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2013;3(12):WMCRW002419
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This is a following up paper from a previous one that has been submitted to Webmedcentral and received acceptable feedback. The main claim of the present paper is to add further theoretical background in support of the author’s main hypothesis which suggests that a nuclear core composed of chromosome, hence the nucleus, generates a gravitational force responsible to maintain integrity and structural conformation of the cell or cytoplasm. The author claims that the cell medium is formed of a certain density or space where proteins take on an orbital position depending on the molecular mass and/or the self-gravitational force generated by the nuclear core not unlike stellar bodies maintaining orbital position around a sun. Novel or just another idea that will not leave the drawing board. At this stage I do believe it is worth exploring further. We are only beginning to really understand the complexity of biological systems, how biological systems are affected by shifts in cell density or populations, how a cell is affected by shifts in RNA species or rogue proteins. This hypothesis will find its place but like all novel approaches it remains to see whether it will find enough support to mature.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The application of astrophysics to explain conformation of a living cell is truly novel and to my knowledge have not come across or read much on the present topic.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Perhaps here is where the author may not have reached highest standards. I would have first explored the impact of gravitational forces on biological systems such as humans in space where it is known that bone density is weakened. Perhaps explore first extreme condition like high gravity forces. How much of internal force in a cell is required to sustain a functional internal environment and a cell to be able to live and move in a high gravity condition. Perhaps explore experiments using artificial gravitation. The author could have explored further the exact nature of the cytoskeleton requirements to create an internal space sufficient to sustain a small biosystem (proteins) for a cell to function within normal parameters under different gravitational environment. For instance is the cytoskeleton an essential requirement for an eukaryotic cell composed of a nuclear core and part of a multi cellular organism where not just external but various external pressure will have to be endured. Perhaps explore prokaryotic cells with no cytoskeleton or nucleus and integrate this in the hypothesis. So all together the hypothesis could have been developed much more on the basis of published available experimental evidence and knowledge.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Yes additional exploration of the concept would be beneficial


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    I would like this work to develop with perhaps true translational work involving physicist, biologist, evolutionary biologist, molecular biologist, astrologist and mathematician.


  • Other Comments:

    No more comments to submit

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Biologist

  • How to cite:  Durrenberger P F.Some More Gap Areas of Investigation on Exploring Affect of Invisible Force of Self Gravity in Living Mass[Review of the article 'Some More Gap Areas of Investigation on Exploring Affect of Invisible Force of Self Gravity in Living Mass ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2013;3(12):WMCRW002402
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Self-gravity Concept
Posted by Dr. Marios Kyriazis on 17 Dec 2012 08:19:44 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The author presents for discussion regarding his hypothesis that there exists  form of gravity between aspects of organic material


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    In common with the authors previous paper on the subject, I find it difficult to understand why this is presented as a novel concept when the effects of gravity have been described by many others. What is a novel concept is the effort to suggest that this is the cause of self organisation in nature.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results support the notion that gravity affects components of the cell. This, however has been known for a while.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    If the author proposes that self gravity is a new force witherto undescovered, he will need to provided exact and relevant description of it, with mathematical support. Merely to describe well known facts regarding cell biology does not add to the claim


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. The basic idea is worth exploring further but there is no new insight that can be gained.


  • Other Comments:

    The origin of self-organisation in nature is acomplex issue and does certeainly not depend upon one cause. Several other causes are involved. I have been invited by the author to review this paper.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have experience in complexity and self-organisation in biological systems

  • How to cite:  Kyriazis M .Self-gravity Concept[Review of the article 'Some More Gap Areas of Investigation on Exploring Affect of Invisible Force of Self Gravity in Living Mass ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2013;3(12):WMCRW002401
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse