PepLab Platform: Database and Software Tools for Analysis of Food-Derived Bioactive Peptides
, Ivelina Deseva 3,*, Stanka Hadzhikoleva 4, Albert Krastanov 5, Dasha Mihaylova 5 and Emil Hadzhikolev 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The authors mentioned many advantages of this database. Please compare the common databases mentioned in the paper and give a comparison of key points.
2. The authors should give the keywords used to obtain the source of the data set used in the database.
Author Response
The authors would like to show their appreciation for the reviewer’s helpful, attentive, and thorough review. We accept his\her very detailed suggestions and improvements for the manuscript.
Below, the reviewer can find a point-by-point answer to all comments:
- The authors mentioned many advantages of this database. Please compare the common databases mentioned in the paper and give a comparison of key points.
Answer: The advantages of PepLab platform and the comparison with other food-derived bioactive peptide databases are presented in the newly included Table 1.
- The authors should give the keywords used to obtain the source of the data set used in the database.
Answer: We took it into account and revised our manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The accession of PepLab platform is unavailable in this manuscript. Please give an explanation
2. The architecture of PepLab is considered as user-friendly interface followed the UX/UI design. However, the output file format as peptide fasta file is not differed from exist database. Please give an explanation
Moreover, there are recent related published article and platform: BIOPEP-UWM virtual database, providing the export SMILE strings for further use of these peptide results as 2D or 3D structures in bioinformatics approaches, such as molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation. This work is disappeared in this manuscript.
(https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/14/7204)
Please give an explanation
Author Response
The authors would like to show their appreciation for the reviewer’s helpful, attentive, and thorough review. We accept his\her very detailed suggestions and improvements for the manuscript.
Below, the reviewer can find a point-by-point answer to all comments:
- The accession of PepLab platform is unavailable in this manuscript. Please give an explanation
Answer: We took it into account and revised our manuscript accordingly.
- The architecture of PepLab is considered as user-friendly interface followed the UX/UI design. However, the output file format as peptide fasta file is not differed from exist database. Please give an explanation
Answer: Output files in FASTA format are available only in the Downloads menu. This format is given as the second option, after the tabular format (CSV), because it is one of the most popular formats used in bioinformatics, in particular when working with peptides. It was added as an option because it makes it easier for users who work with specialized software applications using this format.
- Moreover, there are recent related published article and platform: BIOPEP-UWM virtual database, providing the export SMILE strings for further use of these peptide results as 2D or 3D structures in bioinformatics approaches, such as molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation. This work is disappeared in this manuscript. (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/14/7204)
Answer: Thanks for the pointed this interesting article. We have added it to the references in the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Today the scientific research that has peptides as its object is very advanced, however, many studies on the benefit on human health still need to be done.
A platform that indicates different peptides is certainly useful and is a showcase for researchers who put their skills into studying and deepening them every day.
Author Response
Today the scientific research that has peptides as its object is very advanced, however, many studies on the benefit on human health still need to be done.
A platform that indicates different peptides is certainly useful and is a showcase for researchers who put their skills into studying and deepening them every day.
The authors would like to show their appreciation for the reviewer’s helpful, attentive, and thorough review.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. similarity is 8%
2. Add more recent findings (2022-23)
3. The study seems promising and informative to the viewers.
4. The manuscript is written as per the MDPI guidelines. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to show their appreciation for the reviewer’s helpful, attentive, and thorough review. We accept his\her very detailed suggestions and improvements for the manuscript.
Below, the reviewer can find a point-by-point answer to all comments:
- similarity is 8%
- Add more recent findings (2022-23)
Answer: We took it into account and revised our manuscript accordingly.
- The study seems promising and informative to the viewers.
Answer: Thank you very much for your evaluation.
- The manuscript is written as per the MDPI guidelines. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Answer: Thank you very much for your evaluation.
