Tissue and Serum Biomarkers in Degenerative Aortic Stenosis-Insights into Pathogenesis, Prevention and Therapy
, Styliani Geronikolou 1, Irene Lidoriki 2, Christos Kontogiannis 3, Loukas Kaklamanis 4, Loukas Tsourelis 4,†and Dennis V. Cokkinos 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We have made many corrections in English style and language.
The introduction has been shortened.
Conclusions have been rearranged.
We are sending you our revised manuscript.
Thank you very much for your comments
Sincerely yours
Dennis V. Cokkinos
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors discover the correlation between tissue and serum levels of various six biomarkers in patients with degenerative aortic stenosis (DAS). While the authors claim their findings to be novel, the paper lack originality and the paper is not up to par.
Please make the following revisions:
1. Extensive English check is required as well as the entire results and discussion sections have to be rewritten in an organized manner.
2. Discussion section has too many paragraphs, many of them as few as one or two lines, that too are incomplete sentences.
3. Table 1: Please describe what does NM stand for.
4. Figure 1 is very bad quality with low resolution.
5. Please expand Section 3.4.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are answering to your questions :
1. Extensive English check is required as well as the entire results and discussion sections have to be rewritten in an organized manner. Done
2. Discussion section has too many paragraphs, many of them as few as one or two lines, that too are incomplete sentences. Done
3. Table 1: Please describe what does NM stand for.
PN stands for periostin
4. Figure 1 is very bad quality with low resolution.
5. Please expand Section 3.4. Done
Thank you for your comments
Dennis V. Cokkinos
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations on excellent paper on contemporary subject. With just minor English language redaction,I recommend the paper to be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We are sending you our revised manuscript.
Sincerely yours
Dennis V. Cokkinos
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Responses to the comments have not been provided by the author. Modifications made in the manuscript are very superficial and not satisfactorily addressing the comments. No improvement has been done in the representation of the results. The manuscript cannot be accepted in the current format for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Further editing of the English language has been carried out.
Better presentation of results has been effected.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the discussion section, the font size is not uniform in the text (e.g. Lines 288-289). Please fix where applicable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We have improved the english language with the aid of an expert.
Your previous suggestions have been followed.
Dennis V.Cokkinos
