On 2015 Nov 10, Paul Brookes commented:

Although the title uses the term "mitoflash", it is clear from the abstract and the article text that the authors believe these flashes equate to superoxide. This is demonstrably incorrect.

Since the original report on these flash events (Wang W, 2008), there have been a number of papers questioning their attribution to superoxide, because this simply cannot be explained in terms of the fundamental chemistry of superoxide and the sensor cpYFP.

The first questions were raised in 2009 (Muller FL, 2009), and since that time several papers (Schwarzländer M, 2011, Schwarzländer M, 2014, Schwarzländer M, 2012) have provided experimental evidence, firmly demonstrating that cpYFP is NOT A SUPEROXIDE INDICATOR. The authors of the original paper have so-far not provided a satisfactory rebuttal to these data.

The contradictory papers are high profile (Nature) and are known to virtually anyone with a passing interest in this field, and yet they are not cited in this new Cell Metabolism paper. This is a huge omission, and at the very least is suggestive of inadequacies during the peer review process. At the worst, publication of a paper with such demonstrably false claims is suggestive of irresponsibility at the editorial level.

On 2015 Nov 10, Paul Brookes commented:

Although the title uses the term "mitoflash", it is clear from the abstract and the article text that the authors believe these flashes equate to superoxide. This is demonstrably incorrect.

Since the original report on these flash events (Wang W, 2008), there have been a number of papers questioning their attribution to superoxide, because this simply cannot be explained in terms of the fundamental chemistry of superoxide and the sensor cpYFP.

The first questions were raised in 2009 (Muller FL, 2009), and since that time several papers (Schwarzländer M, 2011, Schwarzländer M, 2014, Schwarzländer M, 2012) have provided experimental evidence, firmly demonstrating that cpYFP is NOT A SUPEROXIDE INDICATOR. The authors of the original paper have so-far not provided a satisfactory rebuttal to these data.

The contradictory papers are high profile (Nature) and are known to virtually anyone with a passing interest in this field, and yet they are not cited in this new Cell Metabolism paper. This is a huge omission, and at the very least is suggestive of inadequacies during the peer review process. At the worst, publication of a paper with such demonstrably false claims is suggestive of irresponsibility at the editorial level.