Re: Characterization of the ventricular conduction system in the developing mouse heart
Authors: D Franco
Journal: Cardiovascular Research (2001)

We wish to thank the Editor of Cardiovascular Research established the existence of a subpopulation of myocardial for giving us the opportunity to answer Dr. Anderson's cells which formed a ring encircling the primary intercomments on our recently published paper [1].First, we ventricular foramen.These myocardial cells were positive would like to express our admiration for Dr. Anderson's for the neural antigen G1N2, and were subsequently work and we appreciate the interest he has shown in our identified as the sole precursors of the atrioventricular publication.The fact that he has found some aspects of our conduction tissue (this work is reviewed in our references paper to subject to criticism does not in any way diminish [1, 4).We have not specifically addressed this point for our respect for Dr. Anderson and his work.Indeed, just one reason; the positive reaction of the conduction criticism and counter-opinions stimulate research and lead system precursors to the G1N2 antibody does not directly to the progress of knowledge.imply that these cells have to express the molecular The first point under discussion is the reference that we determinants of the mature conduction system, or that all make to the work done by Drs.Racker and Kadish [2] on the G1N2-positive cells will end up as conduction tissue the conduction system of dogs (our reference [37).These cells.Thus, our probes could neither confirm, nor lead to authors state that the atrioventriocular node has proximal the rejection of, the nature of the precursor ring.By stating and distal extensions, which they call the proximal and that the bundle of His may derive from the ventricular distal AV bundles.These extensions of the AV node can be myocardium we recognize the existence of minor disidentified [2] on the basis of their specific histological crepancies with previous models.The fact that one of us characteristics.By citing these studies, we only recognize (DF) has collaborated with Dr. Moorman for a long time the plurality of the scientific contributions and, in this does not imply that we have to endorse his contribution in particular case, the existence of some controversy on the its entirety, or that we cannot disagree, albeit minimally, definition of the anatomy of the conduction system.with his conclusions.We think that Dr. Moorman under-However, this does not mean that we endorse or accept the stands this very well and can only praise his stylish attitude distinction made by Drs.Racker and Kadish as a dogma.and continuous support.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 References not able to demonstrate differences within the AV node tissue on molecular grounds.Thus, careful reading of the [1] Franco D, Icardo JM.Molecular characterization of the ventricular article indicates that our findings and conclusions on this conduction system in the developing mouse heart: topographical specific point are closer to Dr. Anderson's personal view correlation in normal and congenitally malformed hearts.Cardiovasc than he thinks.