Analysis of ancient mycolic acids by using MALDI TOF MS: response to “Essentials in the use of mycolic acid biomarkers for tuberculosis detection” by Minnikin et al., 2010

Molecular Biomarkers for Ancient Tuberculosis

“…The essence of the problems in both papers published by Mark et al ( , 2011) is exemplified by the data shown in Figs. 4 and 5.…”

“…This response suggested guidelines for the satisfactory recognition of mycolic acid profiles diagnostic for M. tuberculosis. Remarkably, the original clearly inadequate conclusions were vigorously defended by Mark et al (2011), without providing any new convincing data. It is most important, therefore, to demonstrate beyond doubt that the data provided by Mark et al ( , 2011 are not evidence for tuberculosis infection in any of the analyzed archaeological samples, whatsoever; the problems raised by these papers are considered in detail below.…”

“…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).…”