Comment on a little paper

To my interest I just went to pubmed to look for the most recent articles on Kv2.1 channel. It turns out our lab's just came to the second. I went to the first one, read the introduction part which could help me to know about Kv2.1 channel in the nervous system. But the overall research is really nothing interesting.

The authors are trying to compare the native Ik current in hippocampus and the in-vitro current expressed by the cloned Kv2.1 gene. How can such a comparison make any significance??? Do you know how exactly is Kv2.1 functioning as an ion channel? How many auxilary subunits might it use? How many signaling molecules it might get through in order to be able to function normally? This doesn't mean anything!

In the introduction they draw people to understand that Kv2.1 makes up the majority of Ik currents. It would be more interesting if they try to pull out another channel gene may have a significant role in making the Ik current. Or they find that this channel doesn't play the "major" role any more because of making an auxilary subunit or another gene defective. Any way, I don't like it at all. I should not waste my time commenting about it. But let me start to critisize every paper I met.