Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Obesity-associated gut microbiota is enriched in Lactobacillus reuteri and depleted in Bifidobacterium animalis and Methanobrevibacter smithii · 10.1038/ijo.2011.153

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Obesity-associated gut microbiota is enriched in Lactobacillus reuteri and depleted in Bifidobacterium animalis and Methanobrevibacter smithii · 10.1038/ijo.2011.153
Item: Obesity-associated gut microbiota is enriched in Lactobacillus reuteri and depleted in Bifidobacterium animalis and Methanobrevibacter smithii · 10.1038/ijo.2011.153
Rating: 71
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Observational Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper has a sound premise and generally adequate reporting of methods, ethics, and resources. However, it contains a demonstrable arithmetic error in a primary result table (Table 1), lacks any data availability statement or data deposition, and falls short on several design reporting elements (power analysis, replicate distinction, outlier handling).

Three independent reviewers assessed the full published paper; a copyedit pass and targeted verification components (citation, statistics, reproducibility, preregistration, integrity, claim audit) supplemented the rigor evaluation. Only the statistical analysis dimension's 'fail' status and the data code availability dimension's 'fail' status drive the score below 80; the arithmetic error is confirmed by both reviewers and the copyedit pass.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

Recomputed 13 tests: 13 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 13 via agent-written checks.

4 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions3 pass · 3 warn · 2 fail

12 major claims1 unsupported3 partial8 supported

The introduction cites numerous studies on obesity and gut microbiota, acknowledges controversies, and the study aims to increase sample size to detect species-level differences. The discussion addresses limitations of the study being the first to link specific Lactobacillus species with obesity.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper cites prior research establishing links between gut microbiota and obesity, provides a logical rationale for the study, and partially addresses limitations of prior work.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Since these pioneering studies, significant associations were found between the increase of some bacterial groups and obesity (Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii).”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“As many probiotic strains of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are marketed in products for human consumption, altering the intestinal flora and stimulating indigenous lactobacilli and bifidobacteria strains, we hypothesized that widespread ingestion of probiotics may promote obesity by altering the intestinal flora.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“only a few studies have compared the obese and lean subjects by focusing on the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera at the species level and they have not been able to demonstrate significant differences probably because of a too small sample size.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper builds on prior literature linking obesity to gut microbiota alterations, cites relevant studies, and provides a clear rationale for focusing on specific Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Since these pioneering studies, significant associations were found between the increase of some bacterial groups and obesity (Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus aureus, ...). Conversely, other groups have been associated with lean status, mainly belonging to the Bifidobacterium genus.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“...they have not been able to demonstrate significant differences probably because of a too small sample size. As a result, by increasing the sample size, we analyze the composition of the digestive microbiota...”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper adequately cites prior research, provides a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of previous studies.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction]

“It has been reported that the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genus representatives may have a critical role in weight regulation as an anti-obesity effect in experimental models and humans, or as a growth-promoter effect in agriculture depending on the strains.”

direct quote[Introduction]

“by increasing the sample size, we analyze the composition of the digestive microbiota...”

direct quote[Conclusion]

“These results must be considered cautiously because it is the first study to date that links specific species of Lactobacillus with obesity in humans.”

The paper defines exclusion criteria and uses negative controls in qPCR. However, no a priori power analysis, no distinction between biological and technical replicates, and no outlier handling method are described. Independent replication is not applicable for this observational study.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionNOT REPORTED

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 88% conf

The study is a case-control design with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, appropriate controls (normal-weight volunteers), and separate validation by culture and qPCR. Randomization and blinding are not applicable to this observational study.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“Obese patients, as defined by a BMI>30 kg m−2... were selected... Control subjects were healthy volunteers over 18 years of age with BMIs between 19 and 25 kg m−2.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“The exclusion criteria included the following: non-assessable BMI value, BMI<19 kg m−2, BMI>25 kg m−2 and <30 kg m−2, gastric bypass, history of colon cancer, bowel inflammatory diseases, acute or chronic diarrhea in the previous 4 weeks and antibiotic administration <1 month before stool collection.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“The control subjects were predominantly Caucasian and were approached in different geographical locations using a snowball approach.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The observational case-control design is appropriate, but several design elements are not reported (blinding, power analysis, randomization), though some are not applicable. Inclusion/exclusion and controls are adequately described.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Quantitative real-time PCR specific for...]

“Negative controls were included on each plate.”

absence[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

Power analysis is not reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Inclusion/exclusion criteria and controls are adequately reported, but power analysis, replicate distinction, and outlier handling are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

direct quote[Materials and methods, Quantitative real-time PCR]

“Negative controls were included on each plate.”

absence[Materials and methods, Statistical Analysis]

No power analysis or sample size justification is reported.

Age, sex, and BMI are reported in Table 1, with tests for homogeneity. The microbial targets are identified at the species level: Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium animalis, Methanobrevibacter smithii, etc. The species/strain source for the MALDI-TOF database is mentioned (Pasteur, DSMZ). Housing conditions and species/strain for human subjects are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Demographic and health variables (age, sex, BMI) are reported for both groups. Species, strain, and source are reported for microbial targets.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Table 1 reports age (mean±SD), sex (n, %), and BMI (mean±SD) for obese and control groups.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Quantitative real-time PCR...]

“The primer and probe sequences were located on the Tuf (elongation factor Tu) gene... sequences of primers and probes of highly specific real-time PCR were established.”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Subject demographics (age, sex, BMI) are reported and compared between groups, but sex is not reported as a biological variable in the analysis justification, and health status beyond BMI is not detailed.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Male sex 31 (45.6%) vs 21 (51.2%) P=0.35; Age 50.5±14.4 vs 42.6±17.5 P=0.01; Body mass index 43.6±7.8 vs 22.1±1.8 P<0.0001”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“To identify which qPCR bacterial groups ... was most associated with the likelihood of being obese while taking into account possible confounders like age or gender, a logistic regression model was used.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Sex and age/BMI are reported, but detailed demographics (race/ethnicity) are only partially reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Male sex 31 (45.6%) 21 (51.2%)”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“The control subjects were predominantly Caucasian and were approached in different geographical locations using a snowball approach.”

The paper states approval by 'Comité d'éthique de l'IFR 48, Service de Médecine Légale' under accession number 10-002. It states only verbal consent was necessary, citing a French bioethics decree. While this is a stated justification, written informed consent is the typical standard for human research; verbal consent with a regulatory reference is reported but may be considered inadequate depending on the expected norm.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentINADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval from a named ethics committee is reported, with an approval number. Informed consent (verbal) is described, and regulatory compliance is stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“All aspects of the study were approved by the local ethics committee 'Comité d'éthique de l'IFR 48, Service de Médecine Légale' (Faculté de Médecine, Marseille, France) under the accession number 10–002, 2010.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“Only verbal consent was necessary from patients for this study. This is according to the French bioethics decree Number 2007–1220, published in the official journal of the French Republic.”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Ethics approval is reported with a named committee and protocol number, but informed consent is described as verbal only, with justification by a French bioethics decree, which is reported but may be considered inadequate by some standards.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“Only verbal consent was necessary from patients for this study. This is according to the French bioethics decree Number 2007–1220, published in the official journal of the French Republic.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“This is according to the French bioethics decree Number 2007–1220, published in the official journal of the French Republic.”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Ethics committee approval and verbal consent are reported, but regulatory compliance does not mention a widely recognized international framework.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“All aspects of the study were approved by the local ethics committee ‘Comité d'éthique de l'IFR 48, Service de Médecine Légale' (Faculté de Médecine, Marseille, France) under the accession number 10–002, 2010.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Ethics, participants and samples]

“Only verbal consent was necessary from patients for this study. This is according to the French bioethics decree Number 2007–1220, published in the official journal of the French Republic.”

absence[Materials and methods]

No mention of international ethical standards like the Declaration of Helsinki.

The paper uses bacterial strains from Pasteur and DSMZ collections but does not provide catalog numbers. Primers and probes are mentioned but sequences are reported in a supplementary file (not fully detailed in the main text). Software (SPSS v.9.0, Flex control 3.0, Maldi Biotyper Automation Control 2.0, ClustalX 1.8) is identified with version numbers. The study does not use antibodies, cell lines, or animal models, so those are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedINADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Key resources, including bacterial reference strains, culture media, PCR reagents, and software, are adequately identified with sources and catalog numbers where applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Statistical Analysis]

“Data analyses were conducted using SPSS v.9.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Culture on specific Lactobacillus medium (LAMVAB medium)]

“After a 72-hour incubation in jars (AnaeroPack, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc., New York, NY, USA) in an anaerobic atmosphere (GasPak EZ Anaerobe, Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) at 37 °C...”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Software tools and some reagents are identified, but key biological resources (bacterial strains, primers) are only partially identified, without vendor catalog numbers or RRIDs.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Lactobacillus strain collection and MALDI-TOF spectra database]

“The Lactobacillus strain collection of our laboratory has been completed by the strains from the Pasteur and DSMZ collections, and reference spectra have been created from those missing in the Bruker database.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Quantitative real-time PCR specific for...]

“The primer and probe sequences are reported in [Supplementary Material].”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“Data analyses were conducted using SPSS v.9.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).”

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

Software tools are identified, but primer/probe sequences are not fully reported in the main text.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Culture on specific Lactobacillus medium]

“Data were automatically acquired using Flex control 3.0 and Maldi Biotyper Automation Control 2.0.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, Quantitative real-time PCR specific for Lactococcus lactis...]

“The primer and probe sequences are reported in <supplementary material>.”

Table 1 reports 21 (51.2%) male controls, but 21/47 = 44.7%. This is an arithmetic error. Additionally, effect sizes are not provided for the Mann-Whitney tests. The paper does not verify test assumptions, though non-parametric tests are used.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciINADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityFAIL

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named, exact p-values are reported in tables, and software is identified. Data presentation includes n per group and interquartile ranges. Assumptions for logistic regression (univariate screen) are described, but normality tests are not verified for the non-parametric tests used.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, Statistical Analysis]

“the results of Lactobacillus-specific culture and quantitative PCR (qPCR) were compared in the two groups (obese and control group) using the Fisher's exact test when comparing proportions, and the Mann–Whitney test when comparing bacterial concentrations.”

paraphrase[Table 5]

“Table 5 reports OR, 95% CI, and exact p-values for L. reuteri (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.03-3.10, p=0.04), B. animalis (OR=0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.01, p=0.056), and M. smithii (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.97, p=0.03).”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named, exact p-values and confidence intervals are reported, software is identified, and data presentation includes per-group n and dispersion. However, test assumptions are not verified, effect sizes are limited to ORs, and individual data points are not shown.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Logistic regression analysis and Table 5]

“Lactobacillus reuteri (OR=1.79; 95% CI 1.03–3.10; P=0.04); Bifidobacterium animalis (OR=0.63; 95% CI 0.39–1.01; P=0.056)”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“First, the results of Lactobacillus-specific culture and quantitative PCR (qPCR) were compared in the two groups ... using the Fisher's exact test when comparing proportions, and the Mann–Whitney test when comparing bacterial concentrations.”

direct quote[Results, Figures 1-3 and Tables 2-4]

“Figures 1-3 show box plots or scatter plots? Not stated; tables show counts and percentages or median (IQR).”

FAILReviewer 3· 90% conf

There is a demonstrable error in the reported percentage for male controls (21/47 ≠ 51.2%), and effect sizes are not reported for all comparisons.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Male sex 31 (45.6%) 21 (51.2%)”

direct quote[Results, Logistic regression analysis]

“L. reuteri (OR=1.79; 95% CI 1.03–3.10; P =0.04)”

paraphrase[Results, Culture]

“Only p-values are given for Mann-Whitney comparisons; no effect sizes or confidence intervals are provided.”

The paper does not mention any data availability, repository, or code sharing. There is no statement about data availability. No accession numbers for sequencing data are provided (the study uses qPCR, not sequencing, so accession_numbers is not applicable). No custom code is mentioned (code_sharing not applicable). The data_availability_statement is not reported.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

No data availability statement is provided, and neither the raw data nor the custom PCR primer sequences (beyond the supplementary table) are deposited in a public repository. Code is not shared.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is provided in the paper.

paraphrase[Materials and methods, Quantitative real-time PCR...]

“The paper states 'The primer and probe sequences are reported in' (a supplementary table), but no repository or accession numbers for the qPCR data are mentioned.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

No data availability statement, no repository deposit, no accession numbers, and no code sharing are reported. The paper fails to address any of the applicable criteria.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit is mentioned.

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

No data availability statement, repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing is reported.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement is present.

The methods section provides detailed protocols for DNA extraction, qPCR, culture conditions, and MALDI-TOF identification. The discussion thoroughly addresses limitations (first study, need for cautious interpretation, discrepancies between culture and qPCR). Conclusions are stated as associations, not causation. Funding sources and conflicts of interest are declared. Reporting guidelines (STROBE) are not mentioned.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication (PCR, culture, MALDI-TOF). Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and COI are declared. Trial registration and specific reporting guidelines are not applicable for this observational study.

Evidence

direct quote[End of main text, before acknowledgments]

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 3]

“These results must be considered cautiously because it is the first study to date that links specific species of Lactobacillus with obesity in humans.”

direct quote[Conclusion]

“reduced levels of M. smithii has been confirmed as being associated with obesity. In addition, higher levels of B. animalis, L. paracasei or L. plantarum were associated with a normal weight whereas higher levels of L. reuteri were associated with obesity.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are generally complete for replication, funding and COI are stated, and limitations are discussed. However, no trial registration or reporting guideline is applicable, and the paper does not reference a reporting checklist.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods]

“After thawing at room temperature, 100 mg of stool was suspended in 900 μl of cysteine–peptone–water solution and homogenized. A serial dilution was undertaken in phosphate buffered saline...”

direct quote[Discussion, final paragraph]

“These results must be considered cautiously because it is the first study to date that links specific species of Lactobacillus with obesity in humans.”

direct quote[After Conclusion]

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are detailed, outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are stated. However, no reporting guideline is referenced.

Evidence

direct quote[Conclusion]

“These results must be considered cautiously because it is the first study to date that links specific species of Lactobacillus with obesity in humans.”

direct quote[End of manuscript]

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

absence[Materials and methods]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

5 copyedit issues flagged (1 major): mostly consistency, clarity, punctuation.

Checked 56 references: 47 verified — 9 not checked.

Reproducibility

1 data/code link checked; 0 live.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This published paper is compromised by a demonstrable arithmetic error in its baseline table (Table 1: male controls misreported as 51.2% instead of 44.7%) and a complete absence of data availability infrastructure. An informed reader should weigh these issues heavily; the arithmetic error warrants an erratum/correction, and the lack of data sharing limits reproducibility assessment. The remaining dimensions are adequately reported for an observational study, though several could be strengthened.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the arithmetic error in Table 1: change the percentage of male controls from '51.2%' to '44.7%' (21/47).
This is a demonstrable error in a primary result table that undermines the credibility of the baseline data.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement specifying that the qPCR and culture data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request or deposited in a public repository (e.g., Dryad, Zenodo) with a DOI.
The paper currently has no data availability statement, which is a violation of most journal data policies and prevents reproducibility assessment.
3.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the raw qPCR threshold cycle data and culture colony counts in a public repository (e.g., Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo) and include the accession number in the manuscript.
Without raw data, readers cannot independently verify the reported results, limiting the study's credibility and reuse.
4.
HIGHreporting
Add a statement that the study followed STROBE guidelines for observational research, and consider submitting a completed STROBE checklist as supplementary material.
No reporting guideline is referenced; STROBE is the standard for case-control studies and its use signals adherence to reporting norms.
5.
HIGHrigor
Report an a priori power analysis or at minimum provide a sample size justification in the Methods (Statistical Analysis section).
The absence of any power analysis or sample size rationale limits confidence that the study was adequately powered to detect the reported effects.
6.
HIGHstatistics
Report effect sizes (e.g., median differences with Hodges-Lehmann estimator) and confidence intervals for the Mann-Whitney comparisons, not just p-values.
Effect sizes are absent for non-parametric comparisons, which is a reporting gap that limits interpretability.
7.
HIGHrigor
In the Methods (Statistical Analysis), report whether assumptions of the non-parametric tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney) were checked even though they are distribution-free; specifically, state whether the shapes of the distributions were compared.
Assumption verification is not reported; while Mann-Whitney does not require normality, its interpretation depends on distribution shape, which should be noted.
8.
MEDIUMethics
Add a statement of compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki or another internationally recognized ethical framework in the Ethics section.
The paper only cites a national decree; referencing international standards strengthens ethical transparency.
9.
MEDIUMrigor
Clarify the distinction between biological and technical replicates for the qPCR assays and report the number of replicates per sample.
The paper does not distinguish replicate types, which is important for understanding measurement precision.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide the full sequences of primers and probes in the main text or ensure the supplementary table is clearly labeled with a stable identifier (e.g., Supplementary Table S1 with a DOI).
Primer/probe sequences are only referenced to a supplementary table; in-text inclusion or a clear identifier aids reproducibility.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Include exact counts for race/ethnicity in Table 1, rather than the qualitative 'predominantly Caucasian' description.
Exact demographic counts allow readers to assess potential selection bias and generalizability.
12.
MEDIUMethics
Provide a more detailed justification for verbal rather than written consent, or if feasible (for a future study), obtain written informed consent.
Verbal consent without detailed justification may not meet some journals' standards for human subjects research.
13.
LOWreporting
Explain the discrepancy in control sample numbers: 47 controls reported for culture but 44 in the culture results section; 45 controls for genus qPCR but 43 for species-specific qPCR.
These internal numerical discrepancies, while minor, may confuse readers and should be explained or corrected.
14.
LOWcopyedit
In the Results, change 'controls samples' to 'control samples' or 'samples from controls'.
Grammatical agreement issue flagged by copyedit.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Standardize p-value formatting throughout tables (e.g., always use 'P = 0.039' with a space before the equals sign).
Inconsistent p-value formatting, flagged by copyedit, is a minor quality issue.

Full text (42,008 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →