Letters To The Editor
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 14, 2018; 24(2): 310-314
Published online Jan 14, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i2.310
Candida accommodates non-culturable Helicobacter pylori in its vacuole - Koch’s postulates aren’t applicable
Farideh Siavoshi, Parastoo Saniee
Farideh Siavoshi, Department of Microbiology, School of Biology, University College of Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran 14176-14411, Iran
Parastoo Saniee, Department of Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Shahid Beheshti University G.C., Tehran 19839-4716, Iran
Author contributions: Siavoshi F and Saniee P contributed equally to the literature review and writing of this letter.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Farideh Siavoshi, PhD, Associate Professor, Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, School of Biology, University College of Sciences, University of Tehran, Enghelab Avenue, Tehran 14176-14411, Iran. siavoshi@khayam.ut.ac.ir
Telephone: + 98-21-61112460 Fax: +98-21-66492992
Received: November 10, 2017
Peer-review started: November 11, 2017
First decision: November 30, 2017
Revised: December 8, 2017
Accepted: December 13, 2017
Article in press: December 13, 2017
Published online: January 14, 2018
Processing time: 65 Days and 4.6 Hours
Abstract

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.

Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, Intracellular occurrence, Candida yeast, 16S rDNA detection

Core tip: The authors of the “letter to the editor” “Helicobacter is preserved in yeast vacuoles! Does Koch’s postulates confirm it?” argue that amoeba fits better than Candida yeast in our review. They like to see intracellular Helicobacter pylori only inside amoeba, not in yeast. The questions raised are: which one can carry H. pylori to the human gastrointestinal tract, vagina and skin, while remaining alive and able to colonize - amoeba or yeast? Which one is recognized as a member of the microbiota of these locations - amoeba or yeast? Accordingly, the authors present their personal conclusions, without supporting references and experimental data.