Essentials in the use of mycolic acid biomarkers for tuberculosis detection: response to “High-throughput mass spectrometric analysis of 1400-year-old mycolic acids as biomarkers for ancient tuberculosis infection” by

Molecular Biomarkers for Ancient Tuberculosis

“…The paper of Minnikin et al (2010) provided a considered in-depth constructive analysis of the inadequacies of the data shown in , so these criticisms will not be repeated in detail. The essence of the problems in both papers published by Mark et al ( , 2011) is exemplified by the data shown in Figs.…”

“…4A and 4B, is the undisputed fact that mycolic acids do not have recorded molecular weights greater than 1350 amu (Laval et al, 2001;Watanabe et al, 2001Watanabe et al, , 2002 so the presence of alien substances is suspected. As noted above, these and other criticisms have been thoroughly aired by Minnikin et al (2010) in a constructive attempt to establish reliable guidelines for the recognition of mycolic biomarkers in the diagnosis of ancient tuberculosis. However, Mark et al (2011) declined to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable errors and deficiencies, raised by Minnikin et al (2010), in the original paper of .…”

“…As noted above, these and other criticisms have been thoroughly aired by Minnikin et al (2010) in a constructive attempt to establish reliable guidelines for the recognition of mycolic biomarkers in the diagnosis of ancient tuberculosis. However, Mark et al (2011) declined to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable errors and deficiencies, raised by Minnikin et al (2010), in the original paper of . In a most unsatisfactory manner, Mark et al (2011) were able to submit their response on 17 th December 2009, precisely one calendar month after the receipt of Minnikin et al (2010) on 19 th November 2009.…”

“…However, Mark et al (2011) declined to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable errors and deficiencies, raised by Minnikin et al (2010), in the original paper of . In a most unsatisfactory manner, Mark et al (2011) were able to submit their response on 17 th December 2009, precisely one calendar month after the receipt of Minnikin et al (2010) on 19 th November 2009. This indisputably proves that unauthorized privileged information had been provided to Mark et al (2011), well in advance of the due confidential reviewing process for the manuscript of Minnikin et al (2010).…”

“…In a most unsatisfactory manner, Mark et al (2011) were able to submit their response on 17 th December 2009, precisely one calendar month after the receipt of Minnikin et al (2010) on 19 th November 2009. This indisputably proves that unauthorized privileged information had been provided to Mark et al (2011), well in advance of the due confidential reviewing process for the manuscript of Minnikin et al (2010). Disregarding the deficiencies and practises in the publication process, attention must be focussed on the data and arguments advanced in the publication of Mark et al (2011).…”