Greenshell Mussel Products: A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability, Traditional Use, and Efficacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review entitled “Greenshell mussel products: A comprehensive review of sustainability, traditional use, and efficacy” written by Matthew R Miller and co-workers summarizes the sustainability, traditional use, and efficacy of GSM, details the health benefits of GSM in clinical applications, and identifies potential mechanisms and molecular pathways initiated by the various bioactive components of GSM. The review is generally well prepared. However, there are some points as shown below that could be greatly addressed to further improve the manuscript.

Some points:

1.     The GSM related products along with the references are suggested to summarize in tables.

2.     The components of GSM are suggested to summarize in pie charts.

3.     These abbreviations should be provided in the end of the article.  

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time, expertise, and helpful comments, which will allow us to improve the quality of this paper.   We respond to each reviewer individually below. All changes are highlighted in red in the new submission.

Reviewer 1:

This review entitled “Greenshell mussel products: A comprehensive review of sustainability, traditional use, and efficacy” written by Matthew R Miller and co-workers summarizes the sustainability, traditional use, and efficacy of GSM, details the health benefits of GSM in clinical applications, and identifies potential mechanisms and molecular pathways initiated by the various bioactive components of GSM. The review is generally well prepared. However, there are some points as shown below that could be greatly addressed to further improve the manuscript.

Response Thank you for the positive review, we have addressed your specific points below

Some points:

1. The GSM related products along with the references are suggested to be summarized in tables.

Response Unfortunately, this is not a complete list of all GSM nutraceutical products, as there are a large number of minor producers and marketers within NZ-Aotearoa and internationally. The authors feel if we put them into a table there is a high probability of offending industry members, as it would be impossible to list every product from every company. We prefer to keep the information in the present form, which serves to describe representative products and major companies.

2. The components of GSM are suggested to be summarized in pie charts. We agree that this is a very useful improvement.

Response A new figure (figure 2) has been added to include compositional data into pie charts as suggested.  

3. These abbreviations should be provided in the end of the article.

Response The list of abbreviations was not originally included as it was quite long. The list below has been added to the end of the review.

2-monoacylglyceride (2-MAG), 5,9,12,15-octodecatetraenoic acid (OTA), 5-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (5-HETE), 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO), 7,11,14,17-eicosatetraenoic acid (ETA), Aggrecan (AGG), Alpha-1 subunit of collagen type II (COL2A1), Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)

Aotearoa-New Zealand (NZ), Arachidonic acid (AA), ATP-sensitive potassium channels (KATP), Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Calcium-activated potassium channels (BKCa), Carbonic anhydrase II (CA II), Collagen Type II alpha 1 chain  (COL2A1), C-reactive protein (CRP)

C-telopeptide collagen type II (CTX-II), Cyclooxygenase (COX), Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), Furan fatty acids (FuFA), Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), GreenshellTM mussel (GSM), High density lipoprotein (HDL), Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), Interleukin 6; IL-6, Interleukin-1 beta; IL-1B, Lipoxygenases; LOX, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Non-methylene interrupted (NMI), Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Nuclear factor kappa B (NFkB), Nuclear factor of activated T-cells cytoplasmic 1 (NFATc1), Osteoarthritis (OA), Osteoprotegerin (OPG), Phosphatidylcholine (PC), Phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), Phosphatidylglycerol (PG), Phosphatidylinositol (PI), Phosphatidylserine (PS), Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), Receptor activator of NF-kB ligand (RANKL), Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Specialised pro-resolving mediators (SPM), Sulfated glycosaminoglycans (s-GAGs), Supercritical CO2 (SCO2), Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), Triglycerides (TGs), Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), Very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Wnt/planar cell polarity-c-Jun N-terminal kinase (Wnt/PCP-JNK)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please follow the comments attached. English editing is required.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviews

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time, expertise, and helpful comments, which will allow us to improve the quality of this paper.   We respond to each reviewer individually below. All changes are highlighted in red in the new submission.

 

Reviewer 2

Please follow the comments attached. English editing is required.

Response We disagree that the manuscript needs English editing. The paper was assessed by two other reviewers, neither of whom noted errors and English and one explicitly stating it was particularly well written. The paper has had extensive English reviews and one professional editorial review prior to submission. We have included Te Reo (the Polynesian language of the Maori) to describe some of the traditional and cultural features of GSM use. We feel this is appropriate and for each new usage of a word in te reo we have provided an English translation.

Title “Maybe can have something to relate with clinical study since you provide many discussion on that:

Response The authors feel that the word efficacy covers the clinical side of the review which is presently in the title

Reviewer requested removed of “GSM have been a long-established kaimoana (seafood) in Aotearoa-NZ, traditionally eaten by Māori after intertidal collection.” Response we have kept this sentence in as we feel this leading sentence sets up the context around traditional use of GSM, which is a critical feature of the review.

The reviewer suggested two sentences be restructured; however, the authors feel that this is merely a stylistic difference and have chosen not to change so as to retain a consistent voice throughout the review.

Reviewer suggest to remove “Mechanistic studies on GSM have been mainly carried out using fractions or isolated individual compounds rather than a whole GSM extract.” Response This has been removed in the new version.

The reviewer suggested that the section 2.1.1 on Toroi to be removed as they did not see the relevance of the section. Response The authors feel this section provides important information regarding the historical and traditional GSM uses, which is a critical feature to ensure comprehension of the overall review and therefore this section has been retained.

• Can include why these are important

Response The authors are unsure the meaning of the question. The composition of the GSM mussels and powders are vital to the nutritional value of its products.

• reviewer “this section is more similar to paragraph before-

Response The authors disagree as this section is about bioavailability of the components rather than composition of the GSM.

From the reviewer – Insufficient data to support this section on ADHD.

Response, We believe that since there are two studies in this area it is important to cover ADHD as a possible benefit, but agree there is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove a health benefit across the population. We have changes the last sentence to “The findings of these two studies show insufficient evidence to determine the benefit for GSM in treating ADHD and further research is warranted in this field.”

Too much references,

Response, A quick look through previously published reviews in the journal Sustainability identifed a range in the of number of references from 90-230. Our reference length (154) fits within the mean of that range and therefore does not seem unsuitable, particularly for a review of this length and breadth.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well written review with a wide literature review that has taken on local context and indigenous knowledge on production, processing, preservation and utilisation of GSM. However, the review has not included any negative side of GSM in these areas.

While it is well written, authors may reflect on the following:

1. The paragraph (lines 119-16) promotes individual companies. I wonder whether some of these companies are associated with the study sponsor "Aquaculture New Zealand?"

2. The section title 2.2 is problematic especially with the narrative that follows which is on sustainable production or sustainable aquaculture. Can the title reflect on this and not "Sustainable products"?

3. There are some inconsistencies on italicising et al., in vitro, in vivo etc. 

 

Author Response

Response to reviews

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time, expertise, and helpful comments, which will allow us to improve the quality of this paper.   We respond to each reviewer individually below. All changes are highlighted in red in the new submission.

Response to reviews

 

Reviewer 3

This is a well written review with a wide literature review that has taken on local context and indigenous knowledge on production, processing, preservation and utilisation of GSM. However, the review has not included any negative side of GSM in these areas.

While it is well written, authors may reflect on the following:

1. The paragraph (lines 119-16) promotes individual companies. I wonder whether some of these companies are associated with the study sponsor "Aquaculture New Zealand?"

Aquaculture NZ is a national peak body supporting the sustainable growth of aquaculture in New Zealand and proudly representing our marine farmers. Aquaculture NZ has no editorial role of the paper. Their goal in sponsoring this work is to have a definitive resource/review for the clinical benefit of GSM products that all industry members can utilise and refer to. The aim of the review is not to promote any products or producers but to highlight the scientific research on GSM and nutritional products derived. Listing the major producers of such products we feel give the reader the breath of the industry and the sustainability, efficacy and differences across the processes and products.

2. The section title 2.2 is problematic especially with the narrative that follows which is on sustainable production or sustainable aquaculture. Can the title reflect on this and not "Sustainable products"?

We have changed the title to “Sustainability of GSM production”

3. There are some inconsistencies on italicising et al., in vitro, in vivo etc. 

In vivo and in vitro now are consistent throughout the article.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did a significant improvement.