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.
After revisions, one reviewer agreed to publish the manuscript. There are two reviewers left with major revisions, and I think the author has responded adequately. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language could be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
1.Keywords: Non-coding RNA actually includes the MicroRNA, LncRNA and CircRNA. I suggest deleting the MicroRNA, LncRNA and CircRNA in the Keywords.
2.Introduction: I suggest adding the description of what exosomal non-coding RNA is in lines 99-102 to provide the reader with a better understanding. Additionally, the role of exosomal non-coding RNA in other disease also should be described briefly
3.In the section of Production and release of exosomes, in addition to body fluid exosomes, I suggest adding the introduction of tissue exosomes
4.In Table 1, I suggest adding the source of exosomes and specific classification of CAD. Also, please check the correspondence between the references in Table 1 and the contents of the table.
5.Need to improve language in this review, e.g. lines 157-158 use “studies are proving…” for a study published in 2015.
6.It is not clear what the cellular components in Figure 2 represent, and I suggest adding the appropriate textual annotations.
7.Try to use original research rather than reviews in references
8.The conclusion is too long, it is recommended to shorten the text and try to avoid citing references.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The English language used in this article is smooth and unambiguous.
Check the detail comments at the Section 4.
Check the detail comments at the Section 4.
This article aims to discuss and summarize the role of non-coding RNA in coronary heart disease and its contributions to diagnosis and treatment. While this topic is interesting, enthusiasm is lessened as there was not a critical review of the literature and in many cases, conclusions were not drawn. Outstanding issues are noted below:
There is a lack of critical review of the literature presented in literature. Additionally, the cited studies do not seem to be comprehensive. For instance, Chandrasekera D, (Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2022 Jul 1) have summarized the role of exosomal miRNA in cardiovascular disease, Li J. et al (Epigenomics. 2022 Nov) have reported the function of both non-exosomal and exosomal ncRNAs in the regulation of CAD, etc. However, these parts/data are not mentioned in the current manuscript.
Some references in the manuscript simply list data without the necessary analysis and summary, which are the most important part of a review. For example, line 200-205, the authors only cited the sentence from another review without providing any more summary or conclusions. What type of these studies (in vivo, in vitro, or clinical data)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the data obtained from these experiments? What is the principle of the experiment? …etc.
Other minor issues such as:
The reference 28 in the Table 1 is incorrect.
Section 2 “Search strategy” is not necessary.
The Table is too simplistic.
It´s a very good job of researching with all the types of ncRNA in exosomes in coronary artery disease. If I have to say something, you have to specify all the acronyms with the meaning, as with NEAT1 or AMI, that for a researcher in the field of cardiology it may be obvious but for a researcher in another field it is not.
It's a well structured job.
Since the work is based on a review of previously published works, I have nothing to 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.