摘要
The following are the responses to the "letter to the editor"("Helicobacter is preserved in yeast vacuoles! Does Koch's postulates confirm it?") authored by Nader Alipour and Nasrin Gaeini that rejected the methods, results, discussions and conclusions summarized in the review article authored by Siavoshi F and Saniee P. In the article, 7 papers, published between 1998 and 2013, were reviewed. The 7 papers had been reviewed and judged very carefully by the assigned expertise of the journals involved, including the reviewers of the World Journal of Gastroenterology(WJG), before publication. In the review article, 121 references were used to verify the methods, results and discussions of these 7 papers. The review article was edited by the trustworthy British editor of the(WJG), and the final version was rechecked and finally accepted by the reviewers of(WJG). None of the reviewers made comments like those in this "letter to the editor", especially the humorous comments, which seem unprofessional and nonscientific. Above all, the authors' comments show a lack of understanding of basic and advanced microbiology, e.g. bacterial endosymbiosis in eukaryotic cells. Accordingly, their comments all through the letter contain misconceptions. The comments are mostly based on personal conclusions, without any scientific support. It would have been beneficial if the letter had been reviewed by the reviewers of the article by Siavoshi and Saniee.
The following are the responses to the "letter to the editor"("Helicobacter is preserved in yeast vacuoles! Does Koch's postulates confirm it?") authored by Nader Alipour and Nasrin Gaeini that rejected the methods, results, discussions and conclusions summarized in the review article authored by Siavoshi F and Saniee P. In the article, 7 papers, published between 1998 and 2013, were reviewed. The 7 papers had been reviewed and judged very carefully by the assigned expertise of the journals involved, including the reviewers of the World Journal of Gastroenterology(WJG), before publication. In the review article, 121 references were used to verify the methods, results and discussions of these 7 papers. The review article was edited by the trustworthy British editor of the(WJG), and the final version was rechecked and finally accepted by the reviewers of(WJG). None of the reviewers made comments like those in this "letter to the editor", especially the humorous comments, which seem unprofessional and nonscientific. Above all, the authors' comments show a lack of understanding of basic and advanced microbiology, e.g. bacterial endosymbiosis in eukaryotic cells. Accordingly, their comments all through the letter contain misconceptions. The comments are mostly based on personal conclusions, without any scientific support. It would have been beneficial if the letter had been reviewed by the reviewers of the article by Siavoshi and Saniee.
