Next Article in Journal
The Role of Interleukins in Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
Removal of MuRF1 Increases Muscle Mass in Nemaline Myopathy Models, but Does Not Provide Functional Benefits
Previous Article in Journal
Discovery of Small Molecule Activators of Chemokine Receptor CXCR4 That Improve Diabetic Wound Healing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cardiomyocyte Dysfunction in Inherited Cardiomyopathies
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Critical Evaluation of Current Hypotheses for the Pathogenesis of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(4), 2195; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23042195
by Marko Ušaj †, Luisa Moretto † and Alf Månsson *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(4), 2195; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23042195
Submission received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 7 February 2022 / Accepted: 14 February 2022 / Published: 16 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sarcomere Function in Health and Disease)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors presented the review paper "Critical evaluation of current hypotheses for the pathogenesis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ". 

1) Some more 2-3 year references have to be presented in the introduction part to present the area perspectives. 

2) It will be excellent to summarize the hypothesis in the introduction part in one Table with references and some argumentation.

3) Biochemistry scheme for calcium metabolism with dysfunction mechanism is required for section 2.4.

4) Section 2.5 is limited. It is very difficult to understand its necessity. I recommend enlarging it.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provided a huge manuscript on hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. There are no real flaws that need to be addressed but the manuscript is very long, not easy to read because there are too many information. It is more likely to be considered as a book chapter than a review article. I suggest to be more concise and straight to the point. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is upgraded in this version despite it remains very long. 

Back to TopTop