Submited on: 27 Jun 2013 10:11:05 AM GMT
Published on: 27 Jun 2013 12:08:41 PM GMT
 
Ferripyoverdine
Posted by Dr. Birgit Pruess on 30 Jul 2013 02:25:28 PM GMT

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

    They test substrates for the ferripyoverdine receptor. I think this work is important.


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

    Yes, they appear novel.


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

    There is a lot of previous literature, I personally think that the results section is rather short. But the context does fit.


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

    I would have liked to see more experiments to support the claim. THey merely test different substrates in the wild-type P. aeruginosa strain and the receptor mutant. Direct binding to the receptor could have been the next logical step.


  • 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?

    Probably


  • 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?

    As mentioned above, one experiment is not an awful lot. I would have done direct binding of the substrates to the receptor next. Also, we don't know whether there results are specific to the one P.  strain and the one mutant that were tested.


  • 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?

    The idea is good, but I think there needs to be more work done before a presentation can be considered.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • 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:

    20 plus years in the response of bacteria to changes in the environment, including different nutrients.

  • How to cite:  Pruess B .Ferripyoverdine[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002816
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The manuscript addresses the metabolic changes elicited by the absence of ferripyoverdine receptors in P. aeruginosa.


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

    To the best of my knowledge, the claims presented are novel.


  • 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?

    Yes.


  • 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?

    N/A.


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

    Yes.


  • 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. More data could have been obtained about the physiological changes elicited by the lack of ferripyoverdine receptors. However, deciding which physiological changes to focus on would have been difficult and therefore such experiments may be better suited to a follow-up piece of work.  


  • 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?

    The paper is not outstanding, although I would likely mention these data if I were to lecture on iron metabolism by Pseudomonas.


  • Other Comments:

    None.

  • 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:

    16+ years of experience in bacteriology.

  • How to cite:  Antunes L M.Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002814
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The idea of the study is to find the metabolic variants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and TO have evaluated the VITEK 2 Gram negative ID system for their ability to detect such ferripyoverdine receptor mutants. study also has discussed that such mutants as virulence determinants along with others where many are established ones. what is unclear is that how this helps in patient care/ public health importance?


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

    After reading the paper it is not clear as to what message the authors want to convey. have they just evaluated the VITEK 2 system or they want to demonstrate the metabolic disorders in some Pseudomonas aeruginosa species.


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

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    Having read the paper it remains understood as to what authors want to exactly convey from this study. Answers to these are required

    1. variants of ferripyoverdine receptor mutants cannot be detected by VITEK? so modify VITEK
    2. Are these variants more pathogenic, was this studied
    3. Pseudomonas aeruginoosa can be easily identified even with out VITEK so how this study is significant
    4. you have discussed so many virulence facotors. what you want to relate to?
    5. As this is a bacterium that is normally nonpathogen unless under immunodeficient status do not cause invasive infection were you relating to that these ferripyoverdine receptor mutants are more pathogenic in that case how you have stablished

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2010;volume=53;issue=3;spage=568;epage=569;aulast=Ramana

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Kandi V .Metabolic variants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002803
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 work used P. aeruginosa wildtype and ferripyoverdine receptor mutants (for the first time) cultures as inoculums for the VITEK 2 (bioMerieux) biochemical identification system to study the possible role ferripyoverdine receptors might play in the ability of P. aeruginosa to utilize substrates.


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

    Yes


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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


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

    Yes


  • 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


  • 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?

    Quite well presented


  • Other Comments:

    Deserves publication

  • 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:

    This is my subject of specialization

  • How to cite:  Ganguly S .Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002802
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    To study the possible role the receptors might play in regulating metabolism in P. aeruginosa. This work, which will be done in the near future will help improve the already vast knowledge on the ferripyoverdine receptors of P. aeruginosa and this may then later show that the receptors may not only be serving as entrance route for antibiotics, ferri-siderophores and other lethal compounds  but also as regulators of general metabolism in this organism.


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

    Yes, of course. 


  • 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?

    Yes. 


  • 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?
    Not applicable.

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

    Yes.


  • 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?

    No.


  • 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?

    Yes. P. aeruginosa is known to be in possession of a number of antibiotic resistance systems, one of which is gentamicin, the activities of the  enzymes or substrates were influenced by gentamicin alone or in combination with iron.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • 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:

    I have worked for 20 years in a medical microbiology laboratory.

  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Ferripyoverdine recetors and general metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Preliminary results[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine receptors and General Metabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Preliminary Results ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002777
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse