Referee report. For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

MUC1, E-cadherin, IVF, IHC ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article Chakravarty S and Kamal M. MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17929.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Research Article Negative/null result [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Saumitra Chakravarty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4829-3397 1, Mohammed Kamal1Saumitra Chakravarty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4829-3397 1, Mohammed Kamal1 PUBLISHED 06 Feb 2019 Author details Author details 1 Department of Pathology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbag, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh Saumitra Chakravarty Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Mohammed Kamal Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS

Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) has played a major role in the management of infertility, its failure rate is still 60-80% and most of the causes failure are unknown. Therefore, a histomorphology-based predictive tool to forecast IVF outcome that utilizes expression data of certain cellular adhesion molecules in endometrium pertaining to successful implantation might provide the theoretical basis to develop a low-cost laboratory investigation suited for low to middle income countries as opposed to the expensive gene expression based tools like endometrial receptivity array. In this study, mucin 1 (MUC1) and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium from aspiring IVF women were analyzed to see if there is any correlation between signal intensities and endometrial receptivity in terms of IVF outcome.

This was a case-control study conducted among women of reproductive age with infertility who underwent IVF at the Centre for Assisted Reproduction (CARe), Dhaka between March and December 2017. Endometrial biopsy samples were collected and routine histological as well as immunohistochemical analysis was performed on those samples at the Department of Pathology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka. A total of 21 patients, 17 cases (IVF failure) and four controls (IVF success), were included in the study by consecutive convenient sampling. Relevant history and medical records of each of the patients were also obtained accordingly.

No statistically significant correlation was found between IVF outcomes and the signal intensities in endometrium produced by MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry.

Despite the fact that this study did not find any statistically significant correlation between endometrial immunohistochemistry of MUC1 and E-cadherin and IVF outcome, further studies may incorporate gene expression arrays to supplement or revise those findings.

This was a case-control study conducted among women of reproductive age with infertility who underwent IVF at the Centre for Assisted Reproduction (CARe), Dhaka between March and December 2017. Endometrial biopsy samples were collected and routine histological as well as immunohistochemical analysis was performed on those samples at the Department of Pathology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka. A total of 21 patients, 17 cases (IVF failure) and four controls (IVF success), were included in the study by consecutive convenient sampling. Relevant history and medical records of each of the patients were also obtained accordingly.

No statistically significant correlation was found between IVF outcomes and the signal intensities in endometrium produced by MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry.

Despite the fact that this study did not find any statistically significant correlation between endometrial immunohistochemistry of MUC1 and E-cadherin and IVF outcome, further studies may incorporate gene expression arrays to supplement or revise those findings. MUC1, E-cadherin, IVF, IHC Corresponding Author(s) Saumitra Chakravarty ([email protected]) Grant information: This study was partially funded by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2019 Chakravarty S and Kamal M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Chakravarty S and Kamal M. MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17929.1) First published: 06 Feb 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17929.1) Latest published: 06 Feb 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17929.1) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Although birth control measures are highlighted as one of the major reproductive health concerns in third world countries, the population suffering from infertility often goes unnoticed. Globally, 12.4% of women who are trying to conceive in the age range of 20–44 years are infertile, accounting for both primary and secondary infertility; south Asia is one of regions with the highest prevalence of infertility1. Despite the fact that about 16,700 infertility cases are enrolled annually in the handful number of facilities available in Bangladesh and many more of the cases remain unreported, the medical, social, financial and psychological burden associated with the condition is almost always under-appreciated in health statistics2. There is no account of how many infertile couples seek help from fraudulent and pseudoscientific agencies in the country, which may add significantly to the burden3. The high cost of infertility treatment happens to be a major barrier for aspiring couples to seek medical help in Bangladesh2. Failure rates as high as 60%, even in the most developed countries, make the application of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies an expensive gamble4. Moreover, the cause of infertility remains unexplained in 10.95% of cases2. To find a solution to this problem, a research group in Spain analyzed mRNA from endometrial biopsy samples of expecting women and identified 238 genes that play a crucial role in implantation5. Using the results, they developed a customized mRNA array and bioinformatic tool for testing expression of those 238 genes to predict not only the possibility of implantation failure but also the personalized window of implantation (WOI) during which the chance of a successful implantation is maximum. That is called endometrial receptivity array (ERA). As good as it may sound, ERA is not without its own shortcomings. Firstly, it is quite expensive6. Secondly, availability is limited, only at a handful of institutes in Spain, Japan, the USA and a few other countries. Thirdly and most importantly, even if we can improve the odds for success by analyzing all 238 genes’ expression, the results are not translatable in terms of targeted therapy of infertility because there are simply too many targets. Despite these limitations, there has been no other tool as reliable and precise as ERA to date to predict and improve IVF outcome (i.e., success/failure)7. Therefore, efforts are being made to discover clever work-arounds to cut both the cost and number of targets with little compromise in terms of predictive values. ERA-directed proteomic studies of uterine biopsies from both groups of women (with implantation success and failure) indicate that secretory endometrium expresses certain cellular adhesion molecules that firmly attach the blastocyst at the site of implantation8. This cell-cell interaction is pivotal not only for successful implantation but also for maintenance of pregnancy. Proteomics provide a list of few pathways that have a handful of protein molecules9. These are the key players of implantation. So far, five to ten proteins, including mucin 1 (MUC1) and E-cadherin, have shown potential to constitute a panel for predictive screening of implantation failure10. The peculiarity of MUC1 is that it acts as a ‘guiding molecule’ for the blastocyst during implantation in order to direct it to the implantation site of the decidua8. In receptive endometrium, MUC1 expression is generally high, especially in the endometrium during secretory phase, compared to non-receptive endometrium11,12. Interestingly, there is always a small patch of decidua where the receptive endometrium almost completely lacks MUC1 expression during the WOI and that marks the site of implantation. Hence the connotation of a ‘guiding molecule’, as if the blastocyst wanders about the decidua until it finds the designated spot to implant marked by the absence of MUC18,13. In case of non-receptive endometrium as in IVF failures or recurrent spontaneous abortions, global down-regulation of MUC1 throughout the whole of the endometrium fails to elicit the appropriate signal for implantation. However, it should be noted that if implantation is successful then MUC1 expression is quickly depleted and therefore it is one of the negative stains in normal placenta14. Cadherins constitute a group of glycoproteins responsible for the calcium-dependent cell-cell adhesion mechanism. It has been postulated that E-cadherin exhibits dual attributes consisting of an increased expression during secretory phase and early implantation: epithelial cell adhesiveness by E-cadherin is controlled by intracellular calcium and rising progesterone levels induce calcitonin expression and thus increase the concentration of intracellular calcium, which then suppresses E-cadherin expression at cellular contact sites. It corresponds to the adhesiveness of decidua-blastocyst interface while a subsequent spell of its down-regulation corresponds to epithelial dissociation and trophoblastic invasion8. Although cyclical variation in mRNA levels of E-cadherin is not reflected at protein level as detected by IHC, there are indeed immunohistochemically detectable differences of E-cadherin expression between receptive and non-receptive endometrium15. Interestingly, progesterone level has somewhat inverse relationship with E-cadherin expression16,17. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that targeted mutations in E-cadherin gene are associated with implantation failure18. We sought to evaluate in this study if there is any correlation between IVF outcome and semi-quantitative immunohistochemistry scores (H-score) of MUC1 and E-cadherin in endometrial epithelium and stroma. The present study was a case-control study. The study subjects, i.e., all female patients attending Centre for Assisted Reproduction (CARe), Dhaka, Bangladesh who fulfilled the selection criteria, including giving informed written consent to participate in the study, between 1st March and 31st December 2017 were sorted into either case or control groups according to the selection criteria. The key outcome variable that distinguished between the two groups was post-IVF pregnancy status. If the status was non-pregnant then the subject was included in the case group (n=17) and if the participant was pregnant then she was included in the control group (n=4). The sample size was estimated using Kesley’s formula for case-control study19. All other criteria being adequately fulfilled as well as normalizing for possible confounders, e.g. age, body mass index (BMI), obstetric history, menstrual history, contraceptive history, previous IVF outcome, follicular stimulating hormone (FSH) level and luteinizing hormone (LH) level. Endometrial biopsy samples collected from both groups prior to IVF procedure, preserved as formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) blocks in the archive, were assessed both by routine histology and immunohistochemically to determine the values of key exposure variables, i.e., endometrial dating and immunohistochemical H-scores for MUC1 and E-cadherin stains. Those values were used to determine if the exposure variables correlated to the outcome variable, which can predict the outcome of IVF within statistical limits. Inclusion criteria for cases 1. Selected as a candidate for IVF by competent physician. 2. Provided informed written consent to participate in the study. 3. Underwent endometrial biopsy according to the protocol mentioned in data collection procedure. 4. Post-IVF pregnancy status indicates IVF failure. Inclusion criteria for controls 1. Selected as a candidate for IVF by competent physician. 2. Provided informed written consent to participate in the study. 3. Underwent endometrial biopsy according to the protocol mentioned in data collection procedure. 4. Post-IVF pregnancy status indicates IVF success. Exclusion criteria for both cases and controls 1. Refusal to participate in the study or withdrawal from the study at any point. 2. If it is not possible or contra-indicated to obtain endometrial biopsy at all or at the designated time as mentioned in data collection procedure. 3. If the performance of IVF is cancelled or postponed beyond the specified duration of study. 4. If post-IVF pregnancy status could not be ascertained within the specified duration of study or the patient is dropped out from follow-up. 5. Co-morbid conditions like tuberculosis, endometrial hyperplasia, HIV/AIDS, thyroid diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, immunological diseases etc. 6. Incomplete medical record or inadequate sample. Procedures performed at CARe. Endometrial scratching was the method used to collect endometrial biopsy sample. The procedure was performed by a competent physician on the 21st day of the natural cycle or on a day accordingly adjusted for irregular, longer or hormone-assisted cycle immediately before the commencement of IVF cycle. The samples were transferred immediately to 10% buffered formalin in a properly labeled container. The container was then kept at room temperature for 24 hours before it was transported to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) where the laboratory procedures commenced. It was imperative not to freeze the sample because that would cause freezing artifacts rendering it unsuitable for subsequent histological procedures as well as microscopy. Informed written consent was taken prior to the biopsy procedure. Serum levels of FSH and LH were measured on day 3 of the cycle immediately prior to the IVF cycle. Relevant history, clinical information and most of the investigation findings featuring the key variables were collected by the attending physician or the primary investigator via a pre-formed questionnaire at the time of taking the biopsy. Embryo was transferred on the next suitable WOI as determined by the conventional IVF protocol, usually after 72 hours following the oocyte retrieval during which the fertilization took place in vitro. Post-IVF pregnancy check was performed by measuring serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level after two weeks of embryo transfer, taking into account the iatrogenic effect of hCG which was being administered during that period of time. The pregnancy status was recorded accordingly. The rest of the relevant investigation findings unavailable during collection of endometrial biopsy were then recorded. In the case of irregular menstrual cycle, the consultant physician determined the adjusted dates of IVF protocol according to the patient’s previous cycles over one year along with the findings from transvaginal sonography. Table 1 summarizes the IVF protocol that was followed along with the various points in data or sample collection for this study. Procedures performed at BSMMU. Routine tissue processing was done followed by preparation of FFPE blocks for every sample, one for each patient. Hematoxylin-Eosin (HE) stained permanent slides were prepared from those FFPE blocks. Routine microscopy of the HE slides was performed to look for the possibility of tuberculosis, hyperplasia and malignancy as well as for the estimation of endometrial date. After receiving information regarding post-IVF pregnancy status from CARe Hospital, and also combining the information gathered from routine HE histology as well as the data collection sheet, each sample was either included in the study as a case or a control according to inclusion criteria, or excluded from the study according to exclusion criteria. After the sorting of the patients into case and control groups according to the selection criteria, a computer-aided randomized patient coding technique was applied to ensure double blind design so that neither the investigator, nor the supervisor or the personnel directly involved in the study can know which patient or slide belonged to which group until the master datasheet is prepared. FFPE blocks of cases and controls both were then used for preparation of immunohistochemistry slides, by staining each section with antibodies (Table 2). Tissue microarray technique was used for the purpose to reduce the expenditure. Antigen retrieval was performed according to the manufacture’s manual that comes with the designated IHC markers. Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked by 3% hydrogen peroxide for 20 minutes. Slides were then incubated with appropriate clone of designated antibodies at suitable dilutions. Then all the slides underwent the same protocol: slide reagents A (Polymer Helper) and B (polyperoxidase anti-mouse IgG) were used for the reaction and the slides were counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin followed by staining with 3,3’-diaminobenzidine. The slides were then evaluated in terms of H-score by two Pathology consultants independently to rule out inter-observer variation. H-score takes into account two aspects of cellular staining by immunohistochemical markers: relative intensity (RI) and percentage of cells (%C) stained. RI is ranked 0–3 as follows: 0, no/ negative/ background staining; 1, weak positive; 2, strong positive; 3, very strong positive. In a given section, the percentage of cell (%C) that fits each of the four RI ranks are also estimated. Then the RI is multiplied by the corresponding %C value. Lastly, four of such products, one for each RI, are added up to get the H-score of that sample for a given marker9,20. Figure 1 and Table 3 show an example of the scoring system. All of the slides were scanned by Hamamatsu nanoZoomer® slide scanner to create digitally accessible virtual slides for archival purpose. Microsoft Office Excel 2010 was used to perform statistical analysis19–22. For all statistical tests, p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

are prepared in four steps. Firstly, sorting and matching of case and control groups are done for probable confounding variables. Secondly, routine histomorphological evaluation of endometrial biopsy samples was done which includes endometrial dating. Thirdly, immunohistochemical markers in endometrial biopsy samples were evaluated with H-scores and optimum cutoffs were estimated. Lastly, correlations of immunohistochemical markers with IVF outcomes were calculated and statistical inferences were made. In summary, correlations between IVF outcome and H-scores of immunohistochemical markers MUC1 and E-cadherin are weakly positive and statistically insignificant. Out of 21 patients, 17 patients (81%) had IVF failure (not pregnant) and four patients (19%) had IVF success (pregnant). After case-control categorization, the former group was considered case and the latter group was control. All the participants were from middle class to upper middle class according to socioeconomic strata. The women of the case group had a mean age of 34.00 ± 2.31 years while the mean age of the control group was 33.75 ± 4.79 years; the difference between the two groups were not statistically significant. There were no significant difference between them in terms of BMI, FSH, LH, FSH:LH ratio, menstrual and obstetric history which were considered to be the potential confounding factors. Their husbands were all within normal range of relevant reproductive parameters. None of the patients used any contraceptive method ever, except barrier method, and actively trying to conceive for at least two years. Degree of expression of MUC1 and E-cadherin as detected by immunohistochemistry was considered to be the exposure (H-scores ranging from 0-300) and post-IVF pregnancy status was considered as the outcome (pregnant or non-pregnant) in the present study. It is interesting to note that a peculiar staining pattern was observed with E-cadherin where the surface epithelia stained with markedly greater intensity than the glandular epithelia (Figure 2). Most of the samples exhibit similar staining pattern with E-cadherin. Comparison between case and control groups by unpaired t-test show statistically non-significant difference for mean H-scores of MUC1 as well as E-cadherin although MUC1 has a larger effect size (0.91) compared to that of E-cadherin (0.69). Calculation of inter-observer variation between two independent observers (Pathology Consultants) was measured on 10 randomly chosen tissue sections out of 21 samples by Chronbach’s alpha correlation technique21. Inter-observer variation was found to be within acceptable limits for each of the stains22. Due to the variability of data obtained from two subsets of samples, namely, collected before 20th day and collected on or after 20th day, the statistical analysis for derivation of the cutoff scores were calculated separately for the two subsets on each of the markers. At every attempt to find the optimum cutoff, a receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve was drawn first and then its corresponding Youden’s indices (specificity + sensitivity – 1) were plotted if the ROC curve had an area under curve (AUC) greater than zero. The point with the maximum value of the Youden’s index was chosen as the optimum cutoff because it maximized the specificity and sensitivity of the marker in question23. Instances where ROC curve had an AUC of zero unit, Youden’s index could not be meaningful, thus yielding the corresponding cutoff value undefined. AUCs of ROC curves were calculated using trapezoid rule and maximum Youden’s indices were obtained by direct measurement. ROC curve for MUC1 suggested the existence of optimum cutoff values for samples collected before, on or after the 20th chronological day since AUC>0 held for all the instances (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The cutoff for samples collected on or after 20th day was 120 (Figure 5) and the rest of the samples yielded a cutoff of 190 (Figure 6). MUC1 status is to be considered negative if the H-score is less than or equal to the cutoff; if it is above the cutoff then the status is positive. Further calculations concluded that MUC1 status thus had a weak correlation with the IVF outcome, which was statistically insignificant (Figure 7; Table 4). | Marker | Agreement with IVF outcome | Correlation coefficient | Odds ratio | P-value | |---|---|---|---|---| | MUC1 | slight | 0.31 | 5.09 | 0.23 | | E-cadherin | fair | 0.39 | 7.31 | 0.21 | ROC curve for E-cadherin suggested the existence of optimum cutoff values for samples collected on or after the 20th chronological day but not before, since AUC>0 and AUC=0 held for those two instances, respectively (Figure 8 and Figure 9). The cutoff for samples collected on or after 20th day was 75 (Figure 10). E-Cadherin status is to be considered negative if the H-score is less than or equal to the cutoff; if it is above the cutoff then the status is positive. Subsequent calculations determined that E-cadherin status had a weak correlation with the IVF outcome, which was statistically insignificant (Figure 11; Table 4). Various confounding variables were matched between case and control groups in the present study24,25. Age and BMI are two such anthropometric variables, which were matched in similar studies where comparison was being done between receptive and non-receptive endometrium9. However, ratio of sample size between case and control groups in the present study is about 5:1 which is not shown with most of the studies with similar design where the ratio is almost 1:1. This deviation is in part due to relatively lower IVF success rates that ultimately resulted in fewer number of successes accomplished within the study period. Nevertheless, the imbalance between the two groups in the present study was taken into account statistically by applying adjustments for unequal variance wherever appropriate. Although endometrial dating by histomorphological features are indeed helpful, it must be noted that the method has its pitfalls. Basal-only sampling, tangential cuts resulting in false crowding of glands, difficulties in detecting spiral arteries and predecidual change, epithelial-stromal discordance, polyps, inflammation etc. often hinder the accuracy of endometrial dating. Also, some of the samples in the present study lack surface epithelium due to the small quantity of the tissue collected, which was somewhat unavoidable (discussed later). All those factors, compounded by subjective nature of the methodology, makes histological dating of endometrium a challenging feat for the pathologist26. Despite the difficulties, best efforts were made to ensure the dating in the present study was as accurate as possible, which included consultation with expert pathologists, checking and double-checking the findings and cross-referencing with multiple authentic sources. H-score, acronym for ‘histological’ score, was initially developed to quantify immunohistochemical staining of certain tumors but later its use diversified to serve many other arenas of immunohistochemistry including the assessment of endometrial receptivity9. The current study utilized this method to provide a uniform platform for the immunohistochemical markers to be assigned a number that directly reflects its staining characteristics and also makes it more amenable to the robust statistical tools applied subsequently. Due to lack of consensus regarding the roles of immunohistochemical markers and their optimum cutoff values for useful categorization as far as the investigator could search for in English scientific literature, the present study attempted to develop such a scheme tailored for this study from scratch according to the fundamental statistical principles underlying some of the most widely used scoring and categorization systems in diagnostic pathology27. How should the endometrial expression pattern of MUC1/EMA be in order to facilitate implantation remains an open question since non-congruent results regarding this are frequently found in English scientific literature8,10. The present study attempted to address the question by incorporating MUC1 into the immunohistochemistry panel but found its correlation with IVF outcome to be weak and statistically insignificant. Although correlation of E-cadherin H-score with IVF outcome was not statistically significant in the present study, higher H-scores of E-cadherin were found to be more associated with IVF failure which resonates with the findings of other similar studies8,16. An interesting finding of the present study about E-cadherin was the marked difference of its relative intensity between surface epithelia and glandular epithelia where the surface epithelial staining was almost consistently higher in intensity than glands. A similar finding is noted in a study where such differential staining is appreciated in non-receptive endometrium, except the marker was PGRMC1 and not E-cadherin9. Perhaps further inquiry into such peculiarities would unravel more mysteries in the ever-expanding field of reproductive biology. Although this study was confined to endometrial samples at a single point of the menstrual cycle which may contribute to non-representative sampling, further research may be designed incorporating endometrial biopsy collection at more than one day of the patient’s menstrual cycle. This might be achieved by iatrogenic thickening of endometrium by progesterone and/or luteinizing hormone administration, preferably six months to one year prior to the IVF embryo transfer cycle to avoid possible complications in implantation process as practiced in case of ERA9. Besides the prediction of IVF outcome, this modified technique may provide necessary information to calculate the WOI for individual patient that might be used to transfer embryo during IVF, thus improving the odds of IVF success. However, hormone-induced changes in immunohistochemical expression of the markers would have to be taken into account if that method is followed26. Due to ethical and methodological constraints, the amount of endometrial tissue obtained by scratch procedure was generally less than that of routine endometrial curettage. This added to the difficulty in endometrial dating and in appreciating the potential heterogeneous nature of endometrial tissue. One sample had to be kept out of the study pool simply due to sample inadequacy. Moreover, endometrial sample had to be collected just once per patient, thus eliminating the possibility to evaluate samples at more than one point in a menstrual cycle for a patient. Hormonal influence on endometrial tissue may alter the morphological and immunohistochemical findings9,26. Therefore in the present study, samples were collected prior to commencement of hormone treatment. Since the endometrial ‘scratch’ biopsy procedure was performed on each of the patients of both case and control groups, any possible effect of the procedure itself would have been cancelled out between the two groups. Since this study was partly motivated by an attempt to complement the genomic approach for IVF outcome prediction known as ERA, it would be ideal to be able to cross-validate the findings by ERA of each of the samples. However, financial and time constraints prevented the investigators to pursue this aspect. It is anticipated that the study will be used as a guide for further research and will provide essential information to design a low-cost alternative diagnostic tool to ERA for predicting IVF failure as well as individualized WOI. Thus, it may help reduce the financial and associated burdens of women undergoing IVF or other infertility treatment. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (approval no. BSMMU/2017/1576). Written informed consent for publication of the patients’ details was obtained from the patients. The underlying and extended data is publicly available on Open Science Framework: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UAMV428. Supplementary_material_1: Master datasheet [BMI = Body Mass Index; Menstrual history: 0 = Regular, 1 = Infrequent; IVF = In vitro fertilization; Endometrial phase: 0 = Secretory; 1 = Proliferative; Ep. = Epithelium; St. = Stroma; Pregnancy outcome: 0 = Success/conceived by IVF, 1 = Failure/did not conceive by IVF; Previous IVF outcome: 0 = No H/O IVF, 1 = Previous one failure; FSH = Follicle stimulating hormone; LH = Luteinizing hormone.] Digital microscopic slide files are available on request from the corresponding author ([email protected]). As these files are large in size (500MB–1GB each) they are not available on OSF. Supplementary_material_2: Proof of internal consistency (Measurement of interobserver variability by Chronbach's Alpha) Supplementary_material_3: Data analysis regarding MUC1 to calculate its correlation with IVF outcome and odds ratio along with P value (Cohen's kappa correlation or degree of agreement) Supplementary_material_4: Data analysis regarding E-cadherin to calculate its correlation with IVF outcome and odds ratio along with P value (Cohen's kappa correlation or degree of agreement) Supplementary_material_5: Patient consent form used in the study in both Bangla and English Supplementary_material_6: Routine histology lab protocol for Hematoxylin and Eosin stain used in the study Supplementary_material_7: Immunohistochemistry lab protocol for MUC1/EMA and E-cadherin antibody markers used in the study Supplementary_material_8: Ethical approval from Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) allowing the authors to conduct the study Supplementary_material_9: Memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CARe and Department of Pathology, BSMMU Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). This study was partially funded by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences - 1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al.: National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(12): e1001356. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 2. Fatima P, Ishrat S, Rahman D, et al.: Quality and quantity of infertility care in Bangladesh. Mymensingh Med J. 2015; 24(1): 70–73. PubMed Abstract - 3. Nahar P: Invisible women in Bangladesh: Stakeholders’ views on infertility services. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2012; 4(3): 149–156. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text - 4. Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology: National Summary Report. [Online].; 2014. [cited 2016 October 7]. Reference Source - 5. Diaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martínez-Conejero JA, et al.: A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95(1): 50–60.e15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 6. Oak Clinic: Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA) Guidance. [Online].; 2016. [cited 2016 October 7]. Reference Source - 7. Díaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, et al.: The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(2): 508–517. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 8. Achache H, Revel A: Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12(6): 731–746. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 9. Garrido-Gómez T, Quiñonero A, Antúnez O, et al.: Deciphering the proteomic signature of human endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(9): 1957–1967. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 10. Bhusane K, Bhutada S, Chaudhari U, et al.: Secrets of Endometrial Receptivity: Some Are Hidden in Uterine Secretome. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2016; 75(3): 226–236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 11. Bouquet de Jolinière J, Ayoubi JM, Lesec G, et al.: Identification of displaced endometrial glands and embryonic duct remnants in female fetal reproductive tract: possible pathogenetic role in endometriotic and pelvic neoplastic processes. Front Physiol. 2012; 3: 444. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 12. Aplin JD, Hey NA, Li TC: MUC1 as a cell surface and secretory component of endometrial epithelium: reduced levels in recurrent miscarriage. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1996; 35(3): 261–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 13. Aplin JD, Hey NA, Graham RA: Human endometrial MUC1 carries keratan sulfate: characteristic glycoforms in the luminal epithelium at receptivity. Glycobiology. 1998; 8(3): 269–276. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 14. Singer G, Kurman RJ, McMaster MT, et al.: HLA-G immunoreactivity is specific for intermediate trophoblast in gestational trophoblastic disease and can serve as a useful marker in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002; 26(7): 914–920. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 15. Poncelet C, Leblanc M, Walker-Combrouze F, et al.: Expression of cadherins and CD44 isoforms in human endometrium and peritoneal endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002; 81(3): 195–203. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 16. Hantak AM, Bagchi IC, Bagchi MK: Role of uterine stromal-epithelial crosstalk in embryo implantation. Int J Dev Biol. 2014; 58(2–4): 139–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 17. Movaghar B, Askarian S: Expression of e-cadherin, leukemia inhibitory factor and progesterone receptor in mouse blastocysts after ovarian stimulation. Cell J. 2012; 14(3): 225–30. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text - 18. Riethmacher D, Brinkmann V, Birchmeier C: A targeted mutation in the mouse E-cadherin gene results in defective preimplantation development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995; 92(3): 855–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 19. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, et al.: Methods of sampling and estimation of sample size. In: Methods in Observational Epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Reference Source - 20. Stenger M: Calculating H-Score. [Online].; 2015; [cited 2018 January 9]. Reference Source - 21. Snoper D: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Calculator - One-Way ANOVA from Summary Data. [Online].; 2018; [cited 2018 January 8]. Reference Source - 22. Zaiontz C: Real Statistics Using Excel - Cronbach’s Alpha. [Online].; 2018; [cited 2018 January 8]. Reference Source - 23. Tavakol M, Dennick R: Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011; 2: 53–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 24. Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B: Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J. 2005; 47(4): 458–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 25. Silva IdS: Dealing with confounding in the analysis. In: Cancer Epidemiology: Principles and Methods. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization; 1999; 305–331. Reference Source - 26. Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J: Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12): e82249. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 27. Mazur MT, Kurman RJ: Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings: A Practical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2005. Publisher Full Text - 28. Chakravarty S: MUC1 and E-Cadherin Immunohistochemistry of Endometrium Cannot Predict the Outcome of in Vitro Fertilization: A Case-Control Study. OSF. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UAMV4 Author details Author details 1 Department of Pathology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbag, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh Saumitra Chakravarty Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Mohammed Kamal Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was partially funded by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright © 2019 Chakravarty S and Kamal M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. metrics | Views | Downloads | | |---|---|---| | F1000Research | - | - | | PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. | - | - | Citations CITE how to cite this article Chakravarty S and Kamal M. MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17929.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Feb 2019 Views 0 How to cite this report: Naghi P. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r473870) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-473870 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-473870 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 28 Apr 2026 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 The material captures the importance of the endometrium in achieving a pregnancy. The dialogue between the embryo and the endometrium is vital for a successful embryo transfer. The importance of MUC and Ecadherin is emphasized in the text, but ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close The material captures the importance of the endometrium in achieving a pregnancy. The dialogue between the embryo and the endometrium is vital for a successful embryo transfer. The importance of MUC and Ecadherin is emphasized in the text, but the number of samples is small - 17, and the number for the control is 4, without differentiation based on age, and there are few cases to validate the method. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: embryology, citology, laboratory medicine CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Naghi P. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r473870) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-473870 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-473870 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Hinduja I. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r44200) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44200 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44200 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 15 Mar 2019 Indira Hinduja, Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India; P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research centre, Mumbai, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 In the study, the authors evaluated the expression of MUC1 and E-cadherin by immunohistochemistry to determine their role in endometrial receptivity and correlated with the IVF outcome. The study was performed to develop cost effective laboratory investigation as opposed to ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close In the study, the authors evaluated the expression of MUC1 and E-cadherin by immunohistochemistry to determine their role in endometrial receptivity and correlated with the IVF outcome. The study was performed to develop cost effective laboratory investigation as opposed to expensive ERA. However, they did not find statistically significant correlation in case of both the markers. The manuscript is well written in different sections of introduction, methods, results and discussion. However, following are the comments related to the study design and conclusion of the study: - In the “procedure performed at CARe’’ section, it has been stated that ‘The procedure was performed by a competent physician on the 21st day of natural cycle or on a day accordingly adjusted for irregular, longer or hormone assisted cycle immediately before the commencement of IVF cycle’. - In case of natural cycle, whether the ovulation was detected by follicular monitoring or LH to determine the window of implantation e.g. LH+6/7? - In case of women with irregular menstrual cycle, or hormone assisted cycle, how the adjustment was done? which day was considered for endometrial receptivity? - In the case group (n=17), how many of the cases were included from natural cycle and how many were adjusted hormonally? - Whether the authors have compared these two groups separately? - In the study, the patients were selected as cases or controls based on their IVF outcome. Please mention whether all the cases and controls are given similar regimen of hormones or same the hormonal protocol? - Whether the patients with PCOS, endometriosis and other hormonal abnormalities were excluded? - In table 1, it has been stated that endometrial biopsy was taken on Day 12 of the menstrual cycle for four patients (which are from the control group). It means that in controls, the endometrial biopsy was taken during proliferative phase. To have comparison of the women with IVF success and women with IVF failure, the endometrial biopsy should be on same day i.e during the window of implantation especially when authors aim to study the endometrial receptivity based on IVF outcome. Please explain this important point in detail. - As mentioned in the last paragraph of discussion, please explain how the present study results can be used to predict individualized WOI? - Whether the tissue samples stored in trizol or RNA later? Can the markers be correlated with mRNA levels (gene expression levels)? - Based on the previous reports, hundreds of genes are involved in the receptivity of endometrium. For instance ERA predicts the day of personalized ET based on m RNA levels of 238 genes. Therefore, it would be difficult to predict the IVF outcome based on only 2 genes. The panel of some of the genes needs to be performed by IHC to achieve the scientific conclusion of designing the low cost alternative diagnostic tool like ERA. - The sample size of the study is low - The ratio of cases Vs Controls is low (17Vs4) - The study should have a third group of healthy fertile women as a reference group which would be the actual control group comparing fertile (natural) Vs infertile (IVF)Vs Fertile (IVF) women - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: IVF, reproductive biology, endometrial receptivity CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hinduja I. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r44200) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44200 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44200 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Laganà AS. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r44393) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44393 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44393 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 27 Feb 2019 Approved VIEWS 0 It has been identified that this reviewer report does not meet F1000's requirements as outlined in the editorial policies [https://f1000research.com/about/policies]. The authors have been advised not to use this review report when revising this article, but it will remain a ... Continue reading 2. Larue L, Keromnes G, Massari A, Roche C, et al.: Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in IVF.J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017; 46 (5): 411-416 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Vitagliano A, Noventa M, Saccone G, Gizzo S, et al.: Endometrial scratch injury before intrauterine insemination: is it time to re-evaluate its value? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Fertil Steril. 109 (1): 84-96.e4 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Vitagliano A, Saccardi C, Noventa M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al.: Does endometrial scratching really improve intrauterine insemination outcome? Injury timing can make a huge difference.J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018; 47 (1): 33-34 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Vitagliano A, Andrisani A, Alviggi C, Vitale SG, et al.: Endometrial scratching for infertile women undergoing a first embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from randomized controlled trials.Fertil Steril. 2019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close It has been identified that this reviewer report does not meet F1000's requirements as outlined in the editorial policies [https://f1000research.com/about/policies]. The authors have been advised not to use this review report when revising this article, but it will remain a permanent part of the article audit trail. I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study” (F1R-VER19607-R), which falls within the aim of F1000Research. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic. Authors should consider the following recommendations: I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study” (F1R-VER19607-R), which falls within the aim of F1000Research. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic. Authors should consider the following recommendations: - Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker. - Was this study registered? I could not find any information about this point. - Embryo transfer is a key stage in IVF, in which the quality of performance determines the outcome. According to recent evidence, transvaginal ultrasound guidance of the transfer significantly increases the percentage of pregnancies per transfer, both in the general population and in the reference population, compared with transfers performed under transabdominal ultrasound guidance. Authors should add few lines about the topic, referring to: Cozzolino et al.(2018)1; Larue et al.(2017)2. - Recent and robust data suggested that endometrial scratch injury performed once, may improve clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates in IUI/IVF cycles. I invite authors to discuss these data (refer to: Vitagliano et al. (2018)3; Vitagliano et al.(2018)4; Vitagliano et al. (2019)5), in the light of available evidence. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes

1. Cozzolino M, Vitagliano A, Di Giovanni MV, Laganà AS, et al.: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: summary of the evidence and new perspectives. A systematic review and meta-analysis.Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 36 (5): 524-542 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text2. Larue L, Keromnes G, Massari A, Roche C, et al.: Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in IVF.J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017; 46 (5): 411-416 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Vitagliano A, Noventa M, Saccone G, Gizzo S, et al.: Endometrial scratch injury before intrauterine insemination: is it time to re-evaluate its value? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Fertil Steril. 109 (1): 84-96.e4 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Vitagliano A, Saccardi C, Noventa M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al.: Does endometrial scratching really improve intrauterine insemination outcome? Injury timing can make a huge difference.J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018; 47 (1): 33-34 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Vitagliano A, Andrisani A, Alviggi C, Vitale SG, et al.: Endometrial scratching for infertile women undergoing a first embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from randomized controlled trials.Fertil Steril. 2019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Reproductive medicine CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Laganà AS. Reviewer Report For: MUC1 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry of endometrium cannot predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A case-control study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2019, 8:162 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19607.r44393) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44393 https://f1000research.com/articles/8-162/v1#referee-response-44393 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | ||| |---|---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | 3 | | | Version 1 06 Feb 19 | read | read | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Already registered? Sign in close Error Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...