What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claim was the use of molecular medicine to try to resolve a very important problem.
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?
The material and methods were fair enough.
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes and 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?
I don`t think additonal information would improve the paper.
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 because it reveals an important way to approach an old problem.
Other Comments:
No
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 am a dematologist and nutrologist and professor of medicine.
How to cite: Bedin V .The Human Folate Receptor 1 Gene: Molecular Diagnostic of Folate Deficiency[Review of the article ' The Human Folate Receptor 1 Gene: Molecular Diagnostic of Folate Deficiency ' by Nyhan W].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001903
The main claim was the use of molecular medicine to try to resolve a very important problem.
Yes
Yes
Yes
The material and methods were fair enough.
Yes and yes
I don`t think additonal information would improve the paper.
Yes because it reveals an important way to approach an old problem.
No
no
No
No
None
I am a dematologist and nutrologist and professor of medicine.