【求助】审稿人建议不具体怎么回答？谢谢

as noted by the authors themselves, an alternative explanation for the results is that XXX is a beta-adrenocetor antagonist. The validity of this idea is shown by the effects of propanolol in this study. I do realise that the authors have already used a variety of techniques in this study but I think that this point is important and so would like to see this tested rather than suggested as a future experiment. The cardioprotective results seem with XXXto me to be important enough to warrant this extra experiment which would enormously increase the impact of this paper. Alternatively, the authors could test a different model of myocardial injury but this would almost certainly entail more work.
我是在文章讨论处提到了我们今后要进一步研究的方向，也就是探讨一下信号通路．现在审稿人要我补做实验，又没说具体什么实验，敢情要我补做整个信号通路的实验？如果补做的话，一是时间问题，二是那文章也太长了，三是做出来的话就远远超过了这个杂志的水平了，我现在做的内容其实已经达到了这个杂志的要求了呀．真不知道该怎么回复好．向大家请教！