Submited on: 26 Feb 2011 08:46:48 PM GMT
Published on: 27 Feb 2011 06:43:20 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The claims of the paper state that nicotine does not have direct action on aortic tissue or trachea that results in tissue contraction; however, it is known that nicotinic receptors are present on postganglionic neurons in the autonomic nervous system, not on the specific effector organs so this activity was never hypothesized. The claims are therefore irrelevant. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel because rats do not have nicotinic receptors on the effector organs tested in this paper. The location and distribution of nicotinic receptors are well established in scientific literature. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The hypothesis tested claims that have been well characterized in literature for decades so they are not properly placed in the context of scientific literature. The outdated nature of this paper published in 2011 are highlighted by the most recent in-text reference being published in 2000.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results presented do support the claims made that nicotine does not have direct action on these tissues.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The paper does not offer enough details about its methodology to be considered valid and the study would not be able to be reproduced. Omissions include the number of rats in the study, specific details about how methods were carried out, data to demonstrate the claims they are presenting, and how they analyzed data to formulate their claims. 


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No, the study was unnecessary to begin with given what has been proven in the literature. Future experiments would not bolster the claims of this paper.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No, the article does not provide any new findings and is not presented in an impressive manner.


  • Other Comments:

    I do not think this paper should be published because it does not provide new information, methods are poorly elucidated, fails to acknowledge what has been established in scientific literature, and is not presented in a manner that is easy to follow.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a student in the PharmD curriculum at the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy where I have learned about the physiology and pharmacology of the cholinergic neurotransmission. I work in a lab that studies nicotinic neurotransmission and am familiar with recognizing proper methodology in designing experiments involving nicotine.

  • How to cite:  Sawyer E .A Review: Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat.[Review of the article 'Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat. ' by Jayhoon A].WebmedCentral 2016;8(11):WMCRW003380
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claims that direct application of nicotine to rat aorta and tracheal tissues invokes no physiological response which could result in vasoconstriction, increased blood pressure, or bronchospasm. Unfortunately these claims are not very important in that nicotine was never believed to cause these effects through direct action on the aforementioned tissues.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel. Rat aorta and tracheal tissue do not posess nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and would, therefore, not be responsive to nicotine. This can be seen in many phamracological textbooks on the matter including Goodman and Gillman.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No they are not since previous literature makes it apparent that there is no need for this study.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results definitely supprt the claims of the study, but it was already known to be the case.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No

     


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    There is much that is lacking from the methodology including the number of rats used in the study, how many were in each sample group, and how the data was analyzed.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Unfortunately no other experiments could improve this paper due to the fact that it was conducted on a subject that didn't need to be explored.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No, because the study was unnecessary. It was already well established that these tissues possess muscarinic Ach receptors and not nicotinic was. Nothing novel was presented in this paper.


  • Other Comments:

    I would recommend that this article not be published because the subject matter is inconsequential. Not only do we know that smooth and cardiac muscle tissues in mammals utilize mAchRs, we also know that nicotine has several systemic and long term effects through its interactions at preganglionic neurons. I would offer the following suggestions for future work: include a more detailed methods section, conduct more research into the literature and textbooks prior to experiment design, and request that a native English speaker proof read your work. The last point is solely a cosmetic concern as the article is understandable.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a PharmD student at the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, we have studied cholinergic neurons, I have poured over the literature on it, and I have been previously published. I have also engaged in research on various topics for several years giving me a thorough understanding of experimental design.

  • How to cite:  Garcia M R.A Review of Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat.[Review of the article 'Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat. ' by Jayhoon A].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003341
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This article discussed an obsolete topic; that is an autonomic nervous system (ANS) control of cardiovascular which already proved and stated in many pharmacology books such as Goodman and Gillman (BIBLE OF PHARMACOLOGY). It is very obvious that nicotine is affecting ganglion of either sympathetic and parasympathetic systems; hence it exhibits a mix action on various organ. Nonetheless, tracheal smooth muscle has a murcarinic receptors not nicotinic.

    I beleive this work is not suitable for publication since it is already well established in the literature many decades ago. Also the updates is the nonadrenergic noncholinergic system (NANC) which was not mentiomned in this paper due to lack of new references ( the newest was 2000!!!!)

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    - Naser A. Al-Wabel, Robert L. Hamlin. "Acute Induction of Tracheo-Bronchoconstriction in Morphine/Chloralose Anesthetized Beagle Dogs: Physiological and Principles of Therapy". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Supplement of Abstracts, vol. 3. no 2. abst 070P, Aug 2005.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a cardivascular pharmacologist and I did most of my graduate research (MSc and Ph.D) on simulation of atonomic drugs action.

  • How to cite:  Al-Wabel N A.Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat. [Review of the article 'Pharmacologic Effects of Nicotine on Isolated Aorta, Trachea and Lung Function of Rat. ' by Jayhoon A].WebmedCentral 2016;2(12):WMCRW001281
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse