Next Article in Journal
Eukaryotic Genomes Show Strong Evolutionary Conservation of k-mer Composition and Correlation Contributions between Introns and Intergenic Regions
Next Article in Special Issue
Genotype Phenotype Correlation in Dent Disease 2 and Review of the Literature: OCRL Gene Pleiotropism or Extreme Phenotypic Variability of Lowe Syndrome?
Previous Article in Journal
Alternative Splicing Mechanisms Underlying Opioid-Induced Hyperalgesia
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Novel Variant in Superoxide Dismutase 1 Gene (p.V119M) in Als Patients with Pure Lower Motor Neuron Presentation
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Angiotensin–Converting Enzyme (ACE) 1 Gene Polymorphism and Phenotypic Expression of COVID-19 Symptoms

Genes 2021, 12(10), 1572; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101572
by Naoki Yamamoto 1,*, Nao Nishida 1, Rain Yamamoto 2, Takashi Gojobori 3, Kunitada Shimotohno 1, Masashi Mizokami 1 and Yasuo Ariumi 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Genes 2021, 12(10), 1572; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101572
Submission received: 6 August 2021 / Revised: 16 September 2021 / Accepted: 28 September 2021 / Published: 1 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Genotype-Phenotype Study in Disease)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 2: SARS-CoV-2 enters host cells through the interaction of its spike protein with the entry receptor, ACE2 (6), and its expression levels are most likely to be associated with susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2.

Provide references for this, studies reporting association between expression and susceptibility?.

Accordingly, many studies targeting ACE2 have been conducted, including the development of therapeutics.

Same, reference some of the studies.

The binding of SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2 and processing of the S protein by TMPRSS2 may result in the downregulation and depletion of ACE2.

Studies reporting this effect?.

The studies reporting association between ACE I/D and COVID-19 are based on very small number of patients, and they lack statistical power. This makes this revision of limited interest in reference to the association between COVID and ACE I/D. In these studies is almost impossible to perform a multivariate analysis including hypertension and other covariables, due to the very low numbers.

Also, the authors reviewed the studies that analysed the correlation between frequency of the variants and disease prevalence or mortality. These studies are of limited interest because the data of prevalence and mortality are biased by multiple factors, including the number of tests, the political and sociological characteristics of each country, etc. All these should be discussed. The authors could consider this ms:

Michele J Gelfand et al.  The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis. www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Published online January 29, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30301-6

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

very complex review can I have statistical help for table 1,were contradictory results are shown and only males were studied,what about females data?There contradictory results may  in certain geographic areas,such as Japan and Caucasians, especially in subgroups of patients.to speed up the process a statistician should look at this with a meta-analysis and verify male/female.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction needs to be extensively re-organized. The transition from ACE2 to RAAS was extremely abrupt and without much segway. How does COV2 disrupt RAAS signaling? Please provide explanation. Several proteins are abbreviated without once mentioning full names e.g. Ang I and Ang II. The manuscript is very confusing and lacks a flow and definition. Title of the manuscript gives an impression that the AC I polymorphism would be the main subject of discussion. If that is the case, there is a LOT of other subtopics discussed that dont need to be so extensively analyzed. Figure 1  is wrongly placed and describes details that arent fully described through the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 I have revised the ms and i feel it was revised accordingly to my commentaries-suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments, the meta-analysis might be the next future development.

Back to TopTop