Submited on: 06 Dec 2012 09:33:01 AM GMT
Published on: 06 Dec 2012 02:23:36 PM GMT
 

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

    Akio Hiura performed an interesting experiment in which he examined the sensitivity to thermal and mechanical stimuli 24 hours carrageenan injection in mice treated with capsaicin either at 2 or 15 days after birth.  It seems heard to interpret the data completely, and the data raise various possibilities as Hiura discussed.


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

    The presented data are novel and interesting.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    The presented data look phenomenological.  However, they look interesting.  Accordingly, the manuscript would be acceptable after minor revision


  • 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:

    Although molecular mechanisms underlying the presented phenomenon including the candidate molecules involved in thermal nociception other than TRPV1 are still unclear, this manuscript could be published after minor revision.

    1. Page 4.  It is generally understood that TRPM8 is not in the TRPV1 lineage.
    2. Page 5.  The authors used the word, the transgenic TRPV1-/- mice.  The word ‘transgenic’ is different from ‘gene knock out’.
    3. In terms of the candidate molecules involved in thermal nociception in the sensory neurons, TRPM3 and Anoctamin 1 were recently reported (Neuron 70:482-494, 2011; Nature Neurosci. 15: 1015-1021, 2012).  Discussion with the molecules is necessary.
    4. Schematic presentation of the TRPV1-positive and IB4-positive neurons is recommended.
    5. Reference number for ‘31’ us missing.

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

    I cloned TRPV1 gene, and have been working on TRPV1 for more than 15 years and have published more than 30 papers about TRPV1.

  • How to cite:  Tominaga M .Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth[Review of the article 'Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;4(1):WMCRW002447
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Findings of the study substantiate that TRPV1 channel is involved in the perception of noxious heat stimuli. Alternatively, some ion channel of IB4(+) and TRPV1(-) small neurons may sense noxious heat stimuli. 


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    Figure 3. is too small to read correctly


  • 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?

    This paper provides interesting data on a complex issue such as perception of noxious heat stimuli. Disclosure of underlying ion channel activity would make it outstanding.


  • 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:

    Ligand gated ion channels, calcium channel, sodium channel, sodium symporters

  • How to cite:  Kardos J .Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth[Review of the article 'Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002423
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 paper investigated alterations in response behaviors to noxious heat and mechanical stimuli after carrageenan-induced inflammation and how capsaicin affects these changes in 2-days and 15-days old neonatal mice.

     

    It is an important study showing effect of capsaicin on carrageenan-induced behavioral and neuronal changes in neonatal mice and may have crucial implications in developing mammalian nervous systems in relation to the use of carrageenan in our diet.


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

    Claims are partially novel; however, it is an important study and adds new data in the literature. Some studies done by other authors studied other aspects including cell signaling etc. also. Particularly the study noticing the changes in IB-4 neurons and TRPV1-neurons possess significance.


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

    The claims are properly placed with previous literature and add additional knowledge in the field.


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

    Results support the claims. It shows results on behavioral alterations and changes in the IB4-positve and TRPV1-positive DRG neurons under the influence of capsaicin in carrageenan- pre-treatment conditions. Results are expressed with appropriate statistical calculations and to their levels of significance and nicely presented. However, the color pictures showing TRPV1 and IB4 neuronal immunoreactivity could have been marked and compared in a better way. The pictures downloaded are small in the print form.


  • 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?

    Protocol is provided with appropriate controls and nicely designed and planned. No significant deviations are present.


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

    Methodologies described are valid and sufficient.


  • 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 suggestions for further experiment for current investigation are needed at this time.


  • 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 outstanding in its area; however, although some studies have focused on other parameters, it is also important to validate these parameters as well as it also provides some new information plus validate some of it.


  • Other Comments:

    No other comments.

  • 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:

    Biochemistry

  • How to cite:  Sarkar P K.Neonatal Capsaicin-Treatment to Carrageenan-Induced Inflammation Alters Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli[Review of the article 'Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002417
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 authors are describing three possible mechanisms for response to noxious heat after induced inflammation in early birth mice.  The conclusions are standing for novel  explanations of this process. At the first, the acute noxious heat and/or inflammatory heat hyperalgesia could be detected by the TRPV1 channel. On the other side, the equivocal TRPA1 channel could work as a noxious heat sensor. Third, a subgroup of undefined IB4 (+) and TRPV1 (-) small neurons could be able to recognize acute noxious heat stimuli.


  • 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?

    I consider the current condition to be satisfactory. 


  • 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 represents correct and original findings based on traditional research methods and procedures. 


  • 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:

    Experience in neurobiology and neurophysiology

  • How to cite:  Knocikova J .Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth[Review of the article 'Changes in Response Behaviors to Noxious Heat and Mechanical Stimuli After Carrageenan-induced Inflammation in Mice Treated with Capsaicin 2 or 15 days After Birth ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002384
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse