AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Letter To Editor
*Corresponding Author: Hans E Weber, Emeritus Clinical Ass. Professor, UCLA-OliveView Medical Center, California.
Citation: Hans E Weber, (2024), The Discovery of Diabetes Mellitus and its Three Hormones: Insulin, Proinsulin and Preproinsulin, J. Clinical Research and Clinical Trials, 9(2); DOI: 10.31579/2693-4779/176
Copyright: © 2024, Hans E Weber. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 15 December 2023 | Accepted: 26 December 2023 | Published: 09 January 2024
Keywords: diabetes mellitus; three hormones; insulin; proinsulin; preproinsulin; medicine
As the discoverer of Preproinsulin, I became interested in the other landmark insulin-related discoveries. It is a story of great science. Many Nobel prizes were given but, unfortunately, it is also a story of intrigue, deception and politics. In this article, I want to outline my own personal perspectives, opinions, and thoughts about how these discoveries came about.
As the discoverer of Preproinsulin [1], I became interested in the other landmark insulin-related discoveries. It is a story of great science. Many Nobel prizes were given but, unfortunately, it is also a story of intrigue, deception and politics. In this article, I want to outline my own personal perspectives, opinions, and thoughts about how these discoveries came about.
1. The discovery of Diabetes mellitus and Insulin
Much of what I want to say concerning the discovery of Diabetes mellitus and Insulin has been expertly summarized by Alberto de Leiva-Hidalgo and Alejandra de Leiva-Perez in the “Nobel Prize of Physiology or Medicine,1923: Controversies On the discovery of the antidiabetic Hormone” [2]. The term Diabetes comes from the Greeks. Apollonius of Memphis, around 300BC, coined the term Diabetes meaning siphon or passing through. Mellitus is a Latin word meaning sweet.
Modern history of insulin-related discovery begins with Paul Langerhans, a German medical student, who wrote his doctor’s thesis at Charité Berlin in 1869 under Virchow and Cohnheim [3]. In his dissertation “Beiträge zur mikroskopischen Anatomie der Bauchspeicheldrüse” (pancreas), he describes how he found small irregularly formed polygonal cells (Zellen mit rundem Kern ohne Kernkörperchen, meist zu zweien oder in kleinen Gruppen zusammenliegend). He made no reference to what these numerous spots (Gruppen) in the pancreas of rabbits were good for. He contacted tuberculosis and died at age 40 in Fenchal, Madeira.
Oskar Minkowski (German), was born in 1858 in Lithuania, and wrote his doctorate thesis under Bernhard Naunyn in Königsberg. When Naunyn was promoted to full professor in Straßburg, Minkowski followed him. There, he discovered that Diabetes mellitus is closely linked to the pancreas. He removed a canine pancreas, and found that the dog constantly urinated and that the urine contained high amounts of sugar. He published his discoveries in 1889 and 1893. A letter written in 1926, where he himself describes the rather odd circumstances of how this discovery came about, was later found in Buenos Aires, where Minkowski’s widow lived. Minkowski, who came from a prominent Jewish family, died in 1931 in Fürstenberg, Germany.
Soon, the hypothesis was proposed that a substance is being produced by the pancreas that prevents diabetes. Speculation was that the islets in the pancreas were the source of this substance. In 1893 the French histologist G.E. Laguesse called these spots “îlots de Langerhans” [4]. Thus, the ground was laid to experiment further to develop the substance in purer form and use it to combat diabetes. It was not an easy task. In 1900, Marcel Eugene Emile Gley (1857-1930), practicing in France, was the first to demonstrate the presence of the “antidiabetic principle” in extracts from “sclerosed pancreas”. He showed that a pancreatic extract, when given parenterally, can reduce symptoms of diabetes.
In 1906 Georg Zülzer, chief of Internal Medicine at a Berlin hospital, also experimented on diabetic dogs using pancreatic extracts and gave this extract which was called ‘Acomatol’ to a dying patient via injection. He continued his studies and worked with Hoffmann La-Roche on a purer form of this extract. He obtained patents in Germany and the United States. Unfortunately, WWI broke out and he was enlisted. After 1918, it is unclear as to why he failed to further pursue his research. Malaria, myocarditis, envy by his colleagues in Berlin, as well as his Jewish heritage, may have played a role. He emigrated to the United States in 1934. Other researchers followed, mainly Americans, but none was able to reach satisfactory results, unable to keep a diabetic patient alive for a longer period.
Nicolas C. Paulescu was able to produce a more purified extract a few years later and named it ‘Pancreina’. He succeeded with this and demonstrated that only subcutaneous and intravenous routes were effective. He obtained a patent in Romania in 1922.
Occurring exactly 100 years ago, in 1923, before the Nobel Prize was awarded to Banting and MacLeod, the following story—from the accounts of Leiva-Hidalgo and Leiva-Perez—is worth recounting: August Krogh, a Danish researcher, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1920 for developing the “Krogh Principle”. He probably had a significant influence on who should be awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923. His wife was diagnosed with diabetes in 1921. While Krogh was in the United States in 1922, he was informed by Dr. Joslin in Boston, about the Toronto team. He wrote to MacLeod, asking him about the possibility of producing insulin in Denmark. That endeavor led to a successful cooperation. Whether there was foul play or not by deciding to give the award to Banting and MacLeod is unclear, but doubts clearly exist. Krogh had made a deal with MacLeod in December of 1922. He was friends with Göran Liljestrand in Copenhagen (Liljestrand was Executive Secretary of the Nobel Committee since 1918).
Protests came in immediately by Zülzer, E.L. Scott (Chicago), J.R. Murlin (New York) and N.C. Paulescu. None of them were shortlisted. Minkowski and Gley did not protest as far as we know. But even Best, Banting’s student, protested. In 1972, the Nobel Committee finally responded. There is a rule that nothing can be changed unless 50 years have passed. This resulted in changing the language to “the credit for having produced the pancreatic hormone in a practical available form” from “for the discovery of insulin”.
Then who discovered insulin? In 1909 ‘insuline’ was proposed by Belgian scientist Jean de Meyer and the name insulin was given by E.A. Sharper Schafer in 1916. In my opinion, the discovery of the actual hormone insulin is difficult to decide. Clearly, it was not Langerhans. Minkowski came closest. He laid the groundwork with his canine experiments by demonstrating that when the pancreas is removed the dog will die from uncontrolled diabetes. All others before Banting et al were great pioneers who all raced to purify the pancreatic extract and all deserve to be recognized. Gley was the first in this group.
Why all were not shortlisted for the Nobel Prize remains a mystery. Had too many years passed since their experiments? (Not in the case of Gley and Paulescu). Or were they just ignored? Or were they wrongly not considered because of their Jewish heritage (Minkowski, Zülzer), or outspoken anti- Semitism (Paulescu)? Were they just outfoxed by Krogh? We may never know.
The discovery of Proinsulin
The discovery of proinsulin is typically attributed to Donald Steiner, in 1967. As far as this author is aware of, there has never been a challenge in this regard. I want to raise some doubts, since I learned myself of the irregularities Steiner has used in connection with my discovery of preproinsulin and his failure to attribute proper credit.
Neither in his two articles published by him in 1967 nor in his Banting lecture given in 1976 [5] does Steiner state he discovered proinsulin. He mentions in his two articles published in 1967 [6,7], the work of Wang and Carpenter [8]. These researchers had already published a paper in 1965 in which they used the word proinsulin in their title. Apparently, somebody before Steiner knew something about proinsulin. Steiner only proposes a “probable precursor of insulin” and makes that somewhat awkward statement that Wang and Carpenter concluded that „proinsulin „ makes out less than 10% of the total insulin. But isn’t insulin the most important molecule in the body anyway?
In his Banting lecture given in 1976, Steiner states that his studies on the biosynthesis of insulin began about 10 years prior, which would have been 1966. However, Wang and Carpenter spoke of ‘proinsulin’ already in 1965. Steiner omits their work in his references. One has to ask oneself: did he discover proinsulin? No doubt, he kept a busy laboratory and advanced insulin research with the help of brilliant collaborators, but, in my opinion, he cannot lay claim to discovery of that peptide. In his Science article from 1967 [7], he writes in the abstract the following sentence. “The name ‘Proinsulin’ is suggested for this protein”. He also states in the same article, somewhat opaquely, that “it might be less cumbersome, therefore, to designate this material ‘proinsulin’.” I will later come back to these sentences.
The discovery of Preproinsulin
Steiner tried to claim that his laboratory discovered preproinsulin in an article in PNAS in 1976 [9] after I had discovered a larger precursor than proinsulin already in 1973. There he mentions me in reference but in his Banting lecture he omits me completely, whereas he quotes Lomedico and Permutt in his references. Both, I believe, worked with him after we had presented work in 1975 showing the translation of mRNA for insulin [10,11].
Why did he not mention me in his Banting lecture? Was it just plain oversight? Or was it deliberate? He had obtained enough information from me after he had invited me to dinner following my ten-minute talk at the Annual American Diabetes Association meeting in New York in 1975 on the in vitro translation of mRNA for insulin. He heard me proclaim in my lecture that I named this precursor “preproinsulin” I assume he wanted to be the discoverer. It is of interest that he states in his PNAS article from 1976 that “they designate that peptide preproinsulin”. No word of the discovery or of the discoverer.
Did he not write a very similar sentence in his science article from 1967, titled “Insulin Biosynthesis: Evidence for a precursor”: “the name proinsulin is suggested for this protein” or later in the discussion “therefore, to designate this material ‘proinsulin’.” Again, no word of discovery or discoverer.
In my opinion, Steiner intentionally failed to give proper attribution about my discovery of preproinsulin. A form of plagiarism, perhaps? He obtained information from me in a private conversation, used this information, copied it as his own and then labeled it as his own discovery. He never came up with the idea to translate mRNA (that is the originality). He never found this precursor doing any of the original experiments. I coined the name preproinsulin after having conducted multiple repeating experiments and then becoming convinced that there was indeed a precursor to proinsulin.
My Discovery of Preproinsulin in 1975
As a medical student in Munich, I became acquainted with a visiting American professor named Robert Shipp, who himself had insulin-dependent diabetes. He helped me to advance my career in America. After a short fellowship at the Joslin Clinic in Boston, I worked with him in his laboratory in Omaha, Nebraska. After I had received an NIH research fellowship in immunology at UCLA in 1973, I very soon learned the techniques how to translate mRNA in vitro. Our chief, John Fahey, came from NIH and brought with him pure T-cell lines. He asked a very young professor and myself to use these cells and see whether they contained minute amounts of immunoglobulins or similar. Was this the hunt for the T-cell receptor?
The young professor and I split the work, each having our own lab. Our paper was accepted in a prestigious journal, except that one of the editors asked the professor to repeat one of his experiments. The professor then came to me and confessed that he had fabricated all of his work. He was demoted, not fired, and I was ruined academically, not to mention emotionally. I was so distraught by his confession that I quit the lab, gave up all research, and avoided any further contact with academia.
Fortunately, early on in the fall of 1973, I had the idea to translate the mRNA for insulin as well. I was young, full of energy and, I guess, was at the right place at the right time. I worked many nights alone and secretly, much to the dismay of the head of the department, who almost dismissed me. However, I continued because I had early success finding a precursor of proinsulin, an unexpected result. Naturally, I became further excited.
Thus, in the fall or winter of 1973 I had discovered a larger precursor. Two abstracts were published, one in 1974 and the second one in 1975 [12,13]. By early 1975, I was so convinced by my work on different animals that there was a definitive precursor, and wondered about the significance of this larger insulin molecule. For months I pondered it but, unfortunately, I did not come up with a good explanation. Too bad, but I was so convinced of my discovery that I named this molecule preproinsulin in the spring of 1975.
I then referred to this molecule as preproinsulin in my ten-minute talk at the Annual American Diabetes Association meeting in New York in 1975, although no record exists, as far as I know.
Over the last few years, I have learned so much more about my discovery of preproinsulin and its significance. Contrary to my thinking in 1975, where I could not come up with any usefulness as to why nature produces an even larger peptide after translation, I am now stunned by how important preproinsulin has become as a research tool. It starts with G. Blobel’s work. He discovered the so-called Signal Theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1999 [14]. Ironically, he published his seminal work in the same year preproinsulin was discovered. I only learned about it after he was awarded the prize.
Preproinsulin has been extensively used to understand transcription and translation. Recently, Jean-Yves Boulay from France introduced a new nomenclature proposal for the twenty proteinogenic amino acids using preproinsulin [15]. And most excitingly, lately preproinsulin (PPI) has been implicated as a self-antigen to cause insulin-dependent diabetes [16].
In summary, it is a fascinating story about one of the most important hormones. In the case who discovered proinsulin, I am putting forward a new theory. I tried to reach out to the families of Wang and Carpenter but without success. I am also surprised that these two researchers never challenged Steiner or published any other paper on this subject. My wish is that an independent research committee undertakes the task of finding out who the true discoverer of proinsulin really was.
In the case of my discovery of preproinsulin, I can only say I wish I could find my notes for my talk given in 1975 or that there exists a recording of my talk. The American Diabetes Association apparently lacks one. Steiner and his designated research PhD candidate have passed away. I have been in contact with Lomedico, who presented similar results in 1975, but only spoke of a precursor (Permutt, the third presenter died, he only spoke of a precursor as well). After I told Lomedico that I had succeeded already in the fall of 1973 to see a precursor, he never challenged my claim.
The controversies surrounding the discoveries of anti-diabetic hormone and/or insulin have been well documented and show the brilliance of many researchers to advance science and cure diseases, but also demonstrated the weakness of human nature, especially if the prize is the Nobel Prize.
The discovery of insulin itself, in my opinion, nobody can claim. There were many pancreatic extracts. They became over time more purified. Later on the full purification took place in pharmaceutical companies.
With regard to the discovery of proinsulin, I propose a committee should be formed or more research be done as to who truly discovered proinsulin. Over the years, I have repeatedly asked the American Diabetes Association to help, unfortunately to no avail. Should such effort confirm my doubts about the extent of Steiner’s role and his candor, it would raise questions about his unattributed references to preproinsulin and its discovery. In any event, I believe my account of preproinsulin’s discovery in 1975, and coining of the term—now universally used—sets the record straight.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
