Unraveling the Mechanisms of S100A8/A9 in Myocardial Injury and Dysfunction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments,

1.      The conclusion is not sufficiently supportive and does not match the quality of the data presented in the paper. Therefore, I recommend that the authors rewrite the conclusion to better align with the high standard of the data.

2.      Sure, could you provide lines 102-103 and some context about the HAMSc model? This will help me give you a clearer and more accurate rephrasing.

3.      The authors claim that S100A8/A9 does not cause sedation, but they do not present clear data to support this assertion.

4.      The authors should mention the limitations of the current study in the discussion section. Additionally, there is a correlation between the changes in expression profiles of inflammatory molecules and mRNAs that should be addressed.

5.      Are there any studies demonstrating an association between the S100A8/A9 and inflammatory regulation?

6.      Are the S100A8/A9 primarily expressed in CVD?

7.      The manuscript needs major English revision by a native speaker.

8.      The authors also need to provide recommendations based on the findings of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Why is there no content in section 1, the Introduction?
• The entire article needs to be formatted with justified alignment.
• The notation for Zn²⁺ is incorrect on line 63.
• "PGC-1 alpha" should be consistent with "PGC-1α" as shown in the figure.
• "MI" needs to be explained on line 76.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their manuscript Xu Y, et al. presented normal functioning of S100A8/A9 protein, its involvement in inflammation, with particular focus in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases.

The article is well written and presented, with thoroughly explained pathophysiology and signalling pathways of S100A8/A9. Therefore I have no major remarks.

However, the manuscript could be improved, with several minor remarks:

Lines 34-35 – Names of the genes are usually written in italic (S100A8 or S100A9)

Table 1 needs to be improved, specifically Methods in the Clinical segment of the table.

·       “Investigated by phone follow-up after 3 months“ – e.g. short-term prognostic value of S100A8/A0 serum levels.

·       “Enrolled patients to evaluate“ – it is not clear what it represents.

·       “Measure the early alteration in systemic S100A8/A9 levels“ – should be more precisely written. This refers to all other rows in this part of the table.

·       “Pearson of Sperman’s correlation“ says nothing of the methodology used in this study, except fot statistical methods.

·       Same goes for “Prospective, parallel-group cohort study“ and “Correlation analyses, etc.“

Reference 77 should be referred correctly.

There are two Conclusion segments (5. Conclusions and 6. Conclusion). Conclusion should be concise and clear. Therefore, I suggest modifying the segment 5. Conclusions (rename it od change into some other segment), and some parts of this segment add to 6. Conclusion to make a proper one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf