See original article:

Download PDFPDF
Human lymphocyte stimulation with pouchitis flora is greater than with flora from a healthy pouch but is suppressed by metronidazole
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Authors' Reply
    • Andrew JG Bell, Consultant Gastroenterologist
    • Other Contributors:
      • R John Nicholls, Alastair Forbes, H Julia Ellis, and Paul J Ciclitira

    Dear Editor

    We would like to thank Gosselink and colleagues for their observations on our recent paper.[1,2]

    We did not wish to suggest that we were the first to demonstrate a bacterial aetiology of pouchitis and apologise for any part of the paper which might be interpreted in that way. Given that large, well-designed and multi-centre trials of antibiotics in pouchitis as well as IBD are lacking we appla...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A bacterial aetiology of pouchitis
    • Martijn P Gosselink, M.D.
    • Other Contributors:
      • W. Rudolph Schouten, Leo M.C. van Lieshout, Jon D. Laman, Johanneke G.H. Ruseler-van Embden

    Dear Editor

    We read with interest the paper by Bell and co-workers.[1] They conducted a study in order to evaluate the effect of the pouch flora on the proliferation of lymphocytes. They observed that a pouchitis derived bacterial sonicate resulted in a significantly higher proliferation of the lymphocytes obtained from healthy pouch patients’ than a non-pouchitis derived sonicate. The capacity to induce this prol...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.