Next Article in Journal
Cross-Sectional Associations between Mothers and Children’s Breakfast Routine—The Feel4Diabetes-Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Treatment-Related Dysgeusia in Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Journal
Dairy-Derived Emulsifiers in Infant Formula Show Marginal Effects on the Plasma Lipid Profile and Brain Structure in Preterm Piglets Relative to Soy Lecithin
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Association between Sour Taste SNP KCNJ2-rs236514, Diet Quality and Mild Cognitive Impairment in an Elderly Cohort

Nutrients 2021, 13(3), 719; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030719
by Celeste Ferraris 1,*, Alexandria Turner 1, Christopher Scarlett 1, Martin Veysey 2,3, Mark Lucock 1, Tamara Bucher 1,4 and Emma L. Beckett 1,4,5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nutrients 2021, 13(3), 719; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030719
Submission received: 8 February 2021 / Revised: 17 February 2021 / Accepted: 17 February 2021 / Published: 24 February 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study submitted by Ferraris and co-authors was interested because it focuses on the relationship between sour taste genetics  (SNP KCNJ2-rs236514) and mild cognitive impairment in an elderly cohort.  This manuscript addresses a scientifically very interesting and clinically relevant question. This is the first study investigating the relationship between sour taste  (SNP KCNJ2-rs236514) and mild cognitive impairment in an elderly cohort. Despite a difficult topic it presents material and method as well as results in a clear manner which is easy to read. All results are grounded on thorough scientific evaluation and address the main questions in a sound manner.
The paper will certainly have great scientific impact in the field.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their valuable time and considered evaluation of the paper. The constructive feedback is greatly appreciated.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the Authors on choosing a very interesting topic and on well-designed and implemented research. My very slight comments:

Table 2. -  gender data should be transferred to the table 1.

Line 160 - sentence should not start with a number.

References - I am asking for numbering of the references, numbers appear in the main text and they are not in the list.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for your time and constructive comments on the paper. We have made corrections that we hope meet with your approval. Please find the response/actions for each of the reviewer's comments below. 

  1. Table 1. (line 156) contains the analyses of continuous data and Table 2. (line 165) analyses of categorical data. As the data on sex is categorical, it remains in Table 2. 
  2. Line 160 - Thank you for detecting this error. The sentence now begins with a word and not a number. 
  3. References - Thank you for bringing this formatting error to our attention. We apologise for the absence of numbering against each of the references. The numbers were present on submission and have been removed during the submission process. All references are now numbered and the in-text referencing matches correctly. 
Back to TopTop