Next Article in Journal
Profiles of Cytokines Secreted by ARPE-19 Cells Exposed to Light and Incubated with Anti-VEGF Antibody
Next Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic Characterization of Postmolar Gestational Choriocarcinoma
Previous Article in Journal
Expression Profile and Prognostic Value of Wnt Signaling Pathway Molecules in Colorectal Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role and Clinical Interest of Extracellular Vesicles in Pregnancy and Ovarian Cancer
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Role of the Uteroplacental Renin–Angiotensin System in Placental Development and Function, and Its Implication in the Preeclampsia Pathogenesis

Biomedicines 2021, 9(10), 1332; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101332
by Lucile Yart 1, Edith Roset Bahmanyar 2, Marie Cohen 1 and Begoña Martinez de Tejada 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Biomedicines 2021, 9(10), 1332; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101332
Submission received: 30 June 2021 / Revised: 13 September 2021 / Accepted: 21 September 2021 / Published: 27 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gynecological Tumor and Placenta Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a nice review which aimed at providing an overview of the multiple roles of the uteroplacental renin-angiotensin system in cellular processes of placental development, and its implication in the regulation of placental function as well as the consequences of its dysregulation in preeclampsia pathogenesis. The accumulated data is presented in a very intelligible fashion, the figures are very informative, and the reading is entertaining and interesting. I have not found anything major to revise and suggest the manuscript to be accepted in its form.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for considering our manuscript, and for this nice comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for allowing me to review this manuscript. in my opinion the Authors raise a very important topic and relevant issue. Unfortunately I cannot recommend this paper for publication in the present form. The paper need a major improvement. 
A few specific concerns: 
Tha manuscript needs clarification. 
Some data and particularly references are given chaotically. Tha Authors chaotically refer to the cited data and citerd references.
For example on page 7 vers 248 Authors refer to the paper by Delforce and provide the reference number 70 . But paper by Delforce is a number 62 in the referenmces list. And at number 70 in the references list is the paper by Herse and laMarca. 
Moreover it seems that quoted quotation in the text does not apply to this manuscript by Delforce. 
In the paragraph Conclusions Authors refer to papaer No 95, while the list of the references gives references from 1 to 93. Similarly Authors refer to the reference number 94, which is also missing from the list of references in this paper (cited on page 8 vers 337). 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for considering our manuscript and for the helpful comments about the lack of clarity of the citations.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we have updated the references list. In addition to the automatic generation of the references list with a bibliographic software, all the citations have been verified manually.

Back to TopTop