All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors did all corrections/updates based on the reviewers' comments. Both reviewers are satisfied with the current updated version.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. nuscript reached PeerJ standards and ready for publication. Thank you.
The authors have addressed all my concerns.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Involvement of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in p300/ p53-mediated age-related atrial fibrosis - that it requires a few Minor suggestions from Reviewers. Potential and nice work done by authors.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
General Assessment:
The manuscript presents a comprehensive study focusing on the role of SERPINE1, EP300, CDKN1A, and TP53 genes in aging atrial fibroblasts and their potential link to atrial fibrillation (AF). The study uses a robust methodology and offers some interesting insights. However, there are several areas that require further clarification, elaboration, or revision.
Major Comments:
- Statistical Methods: It is essential to describe in more detail the statistical methods used in the study. Did you apply any corrections for multiple comparisons? What statistical software was used?
- Mechanistic Insights: The manuscript would be strengthened by a more detailed discussion of the underlying mechanisms connecting these genes to aging and AF.
- Inhibitors Used: The study employs curcumin as an inhibitor for p300, and mentions another inhibitor, C646. What are the specificities of these inhibitors, and could they have off-target effects?
Summary:
Overall, the study is promising and has the potential to contribute valuable information to the field. However, the manuscript needs major revisions for clarity, depth, and completeness of the scientific content presented.
I recommend resubmission after major revisions.
No comment
No comment
No comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.