Different Proarrhythmic Effects of Aconitine on Healthy and Long QT Syndrome Patients with Human Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Comments: The word ‘Patient’ in the title has been modified to ‘Patients’.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion puts forth the importance of aconitine (ACO) in emergency medicine and how it affects Long-QT syndrome patients with human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs), providing relevant literature. It also highlights the limitations of the study. Lastly, it summarizes by pointing out that comparison of ACO in normal and LQT-hiPSC-CMs supports data for basic research of drugs containing ACO.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are few errors found in the manuscript which are mentioned below, the highlighted portion of the sentence must be checked by the author –

·       Below Keywords, 1^st paragraph, 7^th sentence, “Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) make it realize to rapid detect the toxicity of compounds in vitro” must be written as “Human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) make it realize to rapidly detect the toxicity of compounds in vitro. The word “synsyndeal” in the 1^st sentence of 2^nd paragraph is improperly written and cannot be understood.

·       Under subpoint ‘Culture and maintenance of undifferentiated hiPSCs’, “BD Bipscience, San Jose, CA” should be “BD Bioscience, San Jose, CA”.

·       In Discussion, 3^rd paragraph, 15^th sentence, “However we still not clear why cell index not change even though the amplitue and beating rate were reduced by ACO（5 μM)” is reframed as “However we are still not clear why cell index does not change even though the amplitude and beating rate were reduced by ACO (5 μM)”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The manuscript provides a detailed account of the different proarrhythmic effects of aconitine on healthy and long QT syndrome patients with human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs). It further discusses the methods undertaken for the research and also clearly illustrates the results of the experiments.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team