-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Diego Franco, Re: Characterization of the ventricular conduction system in the developing mouse heart, Cardiovascular Research, Volume 50, Issue 3, June 2001, Pages 611–612, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(01)00296-6
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
We wish to thank the Editor of Cardiovascular Research for giving us the opportunity to answer Dr. Anderson's comments on our recently published paper [1]. First, we would like to express our admiration for Dr. Anderson's work and we appreciate the interest he has shown in our publication. The fact that he has found some aspects of our paper to subject to criticism does not in any way diminish our respect for Dr. Anderson and his work. Indeed, criticism and counter-opinions stimulate research and lead to the progress of knowledge.
The first point under discussion is the reference that we make to the work done by Drs. Racker and Kadish [2] on the conduction system of dogs (our reference #37). These authors state that the atrioventriocular node has proximal and distal extensions, which they call the proximal and distal AV bundles. These extensions of the AV node can be identified [2] on the basis of their specific histological characteristics. By citing these studies, we only recognize the plurality of the scientific contributions and, in this particular case, the existence of some controversy on the definition of the anatomy of the conduction system. However, this does not mean that we endorse or accept the distinction made by Drs. Racker and Kadish as a dogma. Indeed, we state two lines below (our references #38–39) that work done by Dr. Anderson and his colleagues has not demonstrated such a distinction. We also state that we were not able to demonstrate differences within the AV node tissue on molecular grounds. Thus, careful reading of the article indicates that our findings and conclusions on this specific point are closer to Dr. Anderson's personal view than he thinks.
