Potential Mechanisms for Organoprotective Effects of Exogenous Nitric Oxide in an Experimental Study
, Mariia L. Diakova *, Yuri K. Podoksenov, Elena A. Churilina, Tatiana Yu. Rebrova, Shamil D. Akhmedov, Leonid N. Maslov, Alexander V. Mukhomedzyanov, Elena B. Kim, Ekaterina S. Tokareva, Igor V. Kravchenko, Alexander M. Boiko, Maxim S. Kozulin and Boris N. Kozlov
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, I was reviewing with interest the maniscript entitled "Potential mechanisms for organoprotective effects of exogenous nitric oxide in an experimental study ". You deal with a relevant issue and you use a valid animal model to answer the raised questions. However the question of erythrocyte deformability in combination with lactate does not reflect the actions of NO in the context of CA at all. What about the effect of NO on thrombocytes, which play a major role in this context. I also miss a statement about animal care or ethics approval. In total the study deals with a relevant problem and uses a very interesting intervention (NO), but the presented results are not complete and sound.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe animal study proved effect of NO in CPB and even CA underwent CPB animals. The study shed lights on avoiding the potential detrimental effect of CPB. The study design was good, and conclusion was firm. I believed the study merit publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of this manuscript is interesting; however, several deficits need to be addressed as listed below:
1. The scientific writing needs to be carefully checked. There are many errors in English grammar, reference citations, and paragraph arrangement. Please carefully check them.
2. The style of the reference list should be carefully revised.
3. More biochemistry data are required to support the conclusion of this study.
4. This study is more descriptive without molecular mechanistic insights. The authors, at least, should discuss this viewpoint in the revised manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed the reviewer's comments.
