In general This manuscript was written presented a new valuable data possibly considered novel outcomes. However, there is a concern of bias data due to small sample size that clearly mentioned by authors. Methods Line (114): this part should be materials and methods Line (132): Selleckchem company details should be presented such as place, address or city. Same issue for Sigma-Aldrich line (134). Line (149): Figure 2 is unnecessary, legend of this figure on page 24 should be sited in the protocol of HDAC inhibitors administration at methods part. Line (150): Vehicle used for the control group should be described. Line (151): why did authors used this dosage of both compounds; this should be clarified. Line (153): Did authors used mice or rats in the experiment, need to be fixed. Also, why did authors collect blood after euthanasia. This might affect the level of biomarkers that estimated later in this study. Line (171): Details of Signosis company should be mentioned. Results Text from lines (191 to 195) is a method should be moved from result section to the protocol of HDAC inhibitors administration at methods part. Discussion Line (296): it hard to state that MPT0E028 showed a trend in reducing infarct size for two reasons. Firstly, the effect was not significant. Secondly, data of one subject was bias than the other two and it is difficult to justify which one is considered. This limitation was clear in figure 4 for infarct size and figure 5 for TGF-β. If the bias points was related to the same subject, then the author need to check the statistical analysis.