Value of miR-30d and miR-146a as Prognostic Biomarkers for Heart Failure Development Post Myocardial Infarction

Value of miR-30d and miR-146a as Prognostic Biomarkers for Heart Failure Development Post Myocardial Infarction

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Excellent

 

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Very good

 

Goal

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

A: Very good

 

Structure

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

A: Very good

 

Tools and Methods

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

A: Very good

 

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

 

Comments:

The Discussion offers a well-analysed round-up of the findings of the present study, citing all other relevant studies from the existing literature. Also, the limitations are clearly laid out. The author reach the conclusion that levels of miR-30d and markers of inflammation were significantly elevated in patients who went on to develop heart failure within 1 year of their acute myocardial infarction, but when adjusted for confounding factors such as atrial fibrillation, these markers were not independently predictive of this outcome; however, further research is needed to elucidate the role of miR-30d in the regulatory process associated with heart failure.

 

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: Very good

 

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: A few minor issues were noted:

·       “MiR” and “Il-6” must be replaced with “miR” and “IL-6” respectively.

·       The 2nd the 3rd sentences of the Abstract must be joined together as “In this context, the early identification of left ventricular remodelling that ultimately leads to HF remains challenging, with current biomarkers underperforming, and plasma microRNAs (miRs) have been proposed as functional biomarkers” to avoid the repetition of “in this context”.

·       In the 1st paragraph of the Introduction, in the 3rd sentence, “represents” must be replaced with “presents” and in the last sentence, “their” before “AMI” must be removed.

·       In the last paragraph of Introduction, “The aim of this current study was” must be replaced with “The current study aimed” to maintain a more direct tone.

·       In the 1st sentence of Data collection under Methods, “from review of” must be replaced with “by reviewing”.

·       In the last sentence of Plasma miRNAs determination under Methods, “based off” must be replaced with “based on”.

·       In the 1st sentence of the Plasma protein determination under Methods, “ELISA’s” must be replaced with “ELISAs”, and “,” after “instructions” must be removed.

·       In the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Statistical analyses, “there were 11% of patients who” must be replaced with “11% patients”.

·       In the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Statistical analyses, “where” must be replaced with “were”.

·       In the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of Plasma level of miRNA and relation to heart failure development under Results, “Cq values were above 35” must be replaced with “Cq values reaching above 35,”.

·       In the 2nd sentence of the last paragraph of the Discussion, “measuring of” must be replaced with “measuring”.

·       Articles (a, an, or the) and commas were missing in several places.

 

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This original research aimed to identify whether circulating levels of miR-30d and miR-146a were associated with heart failure development in patients following acute myocardial infarction. This matched case-control study on 138 patients, attempting to determine the possibility of using these miRNA levels as prognostic biomarkers in this infliction, is significant in context with the ever-rising rates of rehospitalisation and the associated morbidity and mortality risk in these patients.

 

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

 
 

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Ana S. Holley
Wellington Cardiovascular Research Group, Wellington, New Zealand

Article Info

Article Type
Research Article
Publication history
Received: Tue 08, Dec 2020
Accepted: Sat 19, Dec 2020
Published: Wed 31, Mar 2021
Copyright
© 2023 Ana S. Holley. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.JICOA.2021.01.01