Lactic Acid Fermentation in the Food Industry and Bio-Preservation of Food

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

fermentation -2875396

The manuscript deals with the properties of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and their role in the food bio-preservation.  A comprehensive overview of these aspects deserves attention and could be of interest to readers. I hope some comments could improve it.

-The title is misleading. It translates the idea of a manuscript devoted exclusively to the diverse aspects of the production and use of bacteriocins in food preservation. But it also includes other properties and products produced by LAB. Then, the title should be modified accordingly.

--The use of the abbreviation LAB should be homogenised. It is first directly used in the Abstract without any introduction. Later on, the full name followed by the acronym is used, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and repeated several times.

- The importance of LAB for foods is repeated several times. Please, condense.

- L 130. Please correct Lactic acid

-L 202. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Is it the first time?

-Name of bacteriocins are not homogenously used.

-L359. Revise in-text citation and reference.

-L390-403. Revise species names

-Abbreviated names and full names of species are mixed. Usually, the full name is used the first time, but later, the abbreviated name could be sufficient.

-The reference to Mora-Villalobos is repeated on numerous occasions. It translates the idea that authors are following their trends.

-It is rarely used the denomination Lactiplantibacillus. Most of the researches were indeed made before the new name was assigned to Lactobacillus but authors should consider any possible actualization or mention the reasons for continuing using old denominations.

No comments

Author Response

First of all, we like to thank to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable, and precise comments and suggestions, we tried to answer these comments to our best, and take in account their suggestions. 

Reviewer 1 comments

The manuscript deals with the properties of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and their role in the food bio-preservation.  A comprehensive overview of these aspects deserves attention and could be of interest to readers. I hope some comments could improve it.

Thank you for your comments and observation, any further guidance you can provide will be taken into account in the final review of the document.

1. The title is misleading. It translates the idea of a manuscript devoted exclusively to the diverse aspects of the production and use of bacteriocins in food preservation. But it also includes other properties and products produced by LAB. Then, the title should be modified accordingly.

The title was modified

2. The use of the abbreviation LAB should be homogenised. It is first directly used in the Abstract without any introduction. Later on, the full name followed by the acronym is used, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and repeated several times.

We have standardized the use of the abbreviation LAB throughout the document. In the abstract, we now introduce the abbreviation with its full description, "lactic acid bacteria (LAB)," and maintain consistency by using only the abbreviation in subsequent instances.

3. The importance of LAB for foods is repeated several times. Please, condense.

 We have reviewed the introduction and condensed the idea regarding the importance of LAB in the food industry to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

4. L 130. Please correct Lactic acid

We have corrected line 130, adjusting the reference to 'Lactic acid' as per your observation.

5. L 202. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Is it the first time?

We have reviewed the reference at line 202 and we corrected the presentation, using only the abbreviation "LAB" in subsequent mentions, following the established convention.

6. Name of bacteriocins are not homogenously used.

We have standardized the names of the bacteriocins.

7. Revise in-text citation and reference.

Unable to locate the cited article again, we have decided to remove the information obtained from said article.

8. L390-403. Revise species names

The scientific name was revised

9. Abbreviated names and full names of species are mixed. Usually, the full name is used the first time, but later, the abbreviated name could be sufficient.

We have corrected the presentation of species names following the standard convention. Now, when mentioning a species for the first time, we provide its full name, and in subsequent references, we use the corresponding abbreviations.

10. The reference to Mora-Villalobos is repeated on numerous occasions. It translates the idea that authors are following their trends.

The repetition of the reference to Mora-Villalobos has been done with the purpose of supporting and contextualizing our research within the existing framework. However, we acknowledge the importance of diversifying our references and commit to reviewing and enriching our literature review.

11. It is rarely used the denomination Lactiplantibacillus. Most of the researches were indeed made before the new name was assigned to Lactobacillusbut authors should consider any possible actualization or mention the reasons for continuing using old denominations.

 We have chosen to retain the designation "Lactobacillus" in our work, as it is the predominant nomenclature in the referenced articles. We acknowledge that the new designation "Lactiplantibacillus" has been established, but most of the cited research was conducted before the assignment of this new name.

Reviewer 2 Report

The methods of bibliometric analysis are needed for the review;

Where is the section 3.2?

Typical fermentation systems, conditions and results (yields) should be summarized in Tables;

Comparison among the similar studies needs to be strengthened;

The sustainability, economy and greenness of various reports can be analyzed;

The methods in current patents and successful industrial applications should be covered;

Section 6 can be further extended.

Quality of English is OK

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comments

The methods of bibliometric analysis are needed for the review;

We acknowledge the importance of bibliometric analysis for a comprehensive review. In response to your comment, we will incorporate suitable methods of bibliometric analysis into the review to enhance the depth and robustness of our research.

Where is the section 3.2?

There is only one section in this subsection (3.1). We have reviewed the organization of the content and confirm that no section has been omitted.

Typical fermentation systems, conditions and results (yields) should be summarized in Tables;

We created a table summarizing the fermentation systems, conditions, and results (yields) in the cases where these variables were mentioned.

Comparison among the similar studies needs to be strengthened;

 A comparison of the similar studies mentioned in the review has been conducted to strengthen coherence and highlight their similarities and differences.

The sustainability, economy and greenness of various reports can be analyzed;

Aspects of sustainability and ecology are addressed in the introduction of the article, where the general context of the research is established.

The methods in current patents and successful industrial applications should be covered;

A section has been added discussing current patents on the applications of lactic acid fermentations in the food industry.

Section 6 can be further extended.

 We have extended Section 6 in response to your suggestion. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article "Lactic acid bacteria fermentation: Exploring the crucial role of bacteriocins in food bio-preservation“. The Lactic acid ferentation and bacteriocins is not new

The „Review“ should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (optional) sections, with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words.

Line 1: The authors state that this is a „Review“, but the manuscript reads as an „Article“. What tyoe of article?

Manuscripts submitted to Fermentation should neither be published previously nor be under consideration for publication in another journal. The main article types are listed below and a comprehensive list of article types can be found here:

Article: These are original research manuscripts. The work should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information. The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (optional) sections, with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words.

Review: Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research. No new, unpublished data should be presented. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions, with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words. The recomended that the reference list should be about 100 references.

Line 2: The title of the article is not new. Basically, this topic is not new. Authors should find and review recent articles, highlight the novelty and relevance of the topic in relation to contemporary issues.

The title of teh article should be writin in Caps Letter „Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation: Exploring the Crucial Role of 2 Bacteriocins in Food Bio-preservation“.

Line 7-8: The affilations should be prepared by MDPI requirements.

All abbreviations must be explained the first time they are mentioned in the text

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Books and Book Chapters:

2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.

3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

Unpublished materials intended for publication:

4. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work (optional). Correspondence Affiliation, City, State, Country. year, status (manuscript in preparation; to be submitted).

5. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name year, phrase indicating stage of publication (submitted; accepted; in press).

Unpublished materials not intended for publication:

6. Author 1, A.B. (Affiliation, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Affiliation, City, State, Country). Phase describing the material, year. (phase: Personal communication; Private communication; Unpublished work; etc.)

Conference Proceedings:

7. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Title of the Collected Work (if available), Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference; Editor 1, Editor 2, Eds. (if available); Publisher: City, Country, Year (if available); Abstract Number (optional), Pagination (optional).

Thesis:

8. Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.

Websites:

9. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).

Unlike published works, websites may change over time or disappear, so we encourage you create an archive of the cited website using a service such as WebCite. Archived websites should be cited using the link provided as follows:

10. Title of Site. URL (archived on Day Month Year).

Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we like to thank to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable, and precise comments and suggestions, we tried to answer these comments to our best, and take in account their suggestions. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. If there is no section 3.2 the title of section 3.1 is not necessary. It is suggested that section 3.1 is homofermentative pathway and section 3,2 is heterofermentative pathway.

2. It is suggested for authors to simply introduce the information of bioactivites of related compounds in section  4.1-4.6.

3. The fermentation conditions are not concrete enough.

4. What is the mechanism of Nisin antimicrobial activity?

5. The extraction information in Table 4 is too simple.

6. Please add a figure for section 6 or 7 to clearly summarize related contents for readers.

Minor revision

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions; your contributions have significantly enriched the content and quality of our document.

1. If there is no section 3.2 the title of section 3.1 is not necessary. It is suggested that section 3.1 is homofermentative pathway and section 3,2 is heterofermentative pathway.

We decided to eliminate section 3.2 because the information on the process of heterofermentative and homofermentative fermentation pathways is limited.

2. It is suggested for authors to simply introduce the information of bioactivites of related compounds in section 4.1-4.6.

The bioactivities of bacteriocins were introduced in section 4.6 as suggested.

3. The fermentation conditions are not concrete enough.

The table name was modified to convey that these are variations in fermentation conditions resulting in favorable yields in lactic acid production. Yields were presented as percentages for clarity.

4. What is the mechanism of Nisin antimicrobial activity?

The mechanism of antimicrobial activity of Nisin was added.

5. The extraction information in Table 4 is too simple.

The table was modified.

6. Please add a figure for section 6 or 7 to clearly summarize related contents for readers.

A figure was added in section 5 (Section 6 before the modification of comment 2).