Dear Dr. ***,

Your manuscript no. ***, entitled:

Title,

has been evaluated by the referee(s), who raised a munber of important points, as can be seen from the enclosed evaluation sheet(s).

I am sorry to inform you that we have therefore decided that, in its present form, this manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in the ***JOURNAL .

If you are willing to alter the manuscript according to the comments. made the referee(s), we shall be glad to reconsider it for publication. Also, we inform you that, if a checklist is included, the points herein should be taken care of.

Please reply to the comments. of the referee(s) and indicate which of the required changes have been made and where these changes are to be found in the revised manuscript (page and line). We also ask you to give the reasons. that led you to reject some of the suggested changes.

Would you please send us the manuscript in duplicate, i.e. the entire revised manuscript and one copy thereof, including the complete set of illustrations and list of references for the manuscript and for the copy. Your reply to the comments made by the referees, also in duplicate, should accompany the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Referee's comments

I am astonished that the authors, who have published quite a number of papers in high ranked journals, submit such a sloppy manuscript (e.g. numerous typing errors, references are incomplete and not according to the guidelines, . . . . ). I think a throughout reading of the manuscript is only possible after professional editing. In addition, I have the following major comments.

The statistical analysis seems rather poor. What is the meaning of the trace is a typical of three reproducible observations? How many cells were tested? How many experiments? The effect of IBMX (figure 2C) is not very clear. In how many cells was this effect seen?

At high intracellular [Ca] - as during CPA treatment (or in the presence of the Ca ionophore A23187) - many intracellular enzymatic systems may be inhibited. Therefore, it is incorrect or at least too speculative to conclude that the action of SNP or cGMP is related to Ca-ATPase activity.

Referee's Report

The paper presents interesting results, written, however, in a confused and clumsy fashion. The paper needs therefore to be entirely rewritten considering also the suggestions that I have penciled on my text. Moreover, the text is not up-to-date. For example, no mention is made NO, the physiological controller of cGMP syntesis, and to the large literature on the NO-cCMP-Ca homeostasis, including a recent review on TIPS. Re-consideration is needed, important for the focusing of the paper