Etiologic Puzzle of Coronary Artery Disease: How Important Is Genetic Component?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

1. Thank you very much for evaluating our manuscript. Your recommendations and comments have helped us improve our manuscript. Here we provide the requested corrections and address the comments. The changes we have made in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

Point 2. Introduction. 

• We have corrected the word "recent" in the text.
• We updated the bibliography as you suggested (reference number 12).
  
• In terms of hypertension (fig.1), we initially used the definition present in the last European (ESC) Guideline [8] ; as there are still different opinions between the European Guidelines compared to those of the American Society AHA [11],  at your suggestion we made this statement (fig. 1). Figure 1 has been replaced (we noticed a dislipidemia spelling mistake instead of dyslipidemia).

Point 3. Regarding the bibliographic indications, they were made in the order of citation in the text, being numbered also in table 1. Therefore in the text following the table 1. there are bibliographic indications (6,140) - line 179 - the last bibliographic indication in the table is 139. 

Point 4. We have added the appropriate references.

Point 5. Figure 2 is original. We explained ATS abbreviation.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting review regarding the genetic factors involved in the etiology of coronary artery disease and their relationship to the pathogenic mechanisms of the illness. The article is complex, and interesting, with important results. I consider that Figure 2 best summarizes the most relevant information. I have only some minor suggestions, in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. Please try to better summarize the most relevant and new data on this issue.

 

2. I consider that it is important to present the limitations of the study, to address the future scope and topics that are important and that could not be covered in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for evaluating our manuscript. Your recommendations and comments have helped us improve our manuscript. Here we provide the requested corrections and address the comments. The changes we have made in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

At your suggestion, we also mentioned what we consider to be a limitation of our study related to the current data existing in the literature on the etiology of CAD, specifying what are the new perspectives of future research.