最近 Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy的审稿意见回来了，不确定是审稿人具体的意思，想向各位大神求助一下，具体的审稿意见如下：
-Reviewer 1
Dear Authors
The study investigated the effect of xanthones from Gentianella acuta on I/R injury and tried to illuminate the mechanism of its cardiaprotective effect. I think the intensive study is well organized. The results are very promising. However, the manuscript could have been written better.  it need english editing in minor extent.
for examples;
The first paragraph of the discussion is not convenient for discussion, it must be in the introduction section.
page 17, line 3 "we investigated the effects of xanthones on cardiac function" this sentence is not convenient for discussion.
page 4, line 8: "improve" can be "improved"
page 10, line 8: instead of "this found", this finding is more appropriate.
page 18, line 4, "the enzymes in intracellular" must be "the intracellular enzymes
The color of Fig 2 is not distinctive if it is not color printing   
这位审稿人的意思是让我小修一下，只要把如下几个错误改一下，还是他只是举了几个例子，其他的让我好好看看，改正此类错误。
Reviewer 2
this manuscript the authors describes the beneficial effects of xanthones from G.acuta against myocardial I/R injury in isolated rat hearts using Langendoff system. The data provided in the study largely demonstrates and supports the hypothesis proposed by the authors. However I have the following comments that can strengthen the manuscript.
1) Even though there are many parameters such as LDH assay, Bcl/Bax ratio indicate that G.acuta can prevent cellular apoptosis, there is a lack of mechanistic explanations to this observation. What is the signaling cascade involved in the effect of G.Acuta.  Whether Bcl2/Bax is regulated via AKT, AMPK, ERK or is it a direct effect of G.acuta on mitochondria is not clear.  
这位审稿人的意思是让我按他提的意见补一下实验，还是让我按他的意见好好改一下文中表达的意思。
杂志社一共给我60天的修改时间，是不是打算让我补实验啊? 返回小木虫查看更多