Effects of Protein Structure Changes on Texture of Scallop Adductor Muscles under Ultra-High Pressure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article submitted for publication demonstrate the impact of using high pressure technology on the ad-ductor muscle of scallop.
The document presented is clear. methodology and results and discussion are of quality. The only concern is relative to the low amount of analysis conducted. It might be more appropriate to publish this paper as a short communication.
Here are few specific comments:
Figure 1: Change "scollop" for "scallop"
Table 2: use statistic letters in increasing number. ex:
Elasticity :
7.16 a
5.06 d
5.58 c
6.17 b
Section 5: it is not necessary to use subsection for each parameter, I suggest grouping all subsection into section 5

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear expert：

    Thank you for your suggestions and opinions on the manuscript. I have gained a lot from your suggestions, and I have also made modifications to the manuscript according to your suggestions. The specific modifications have been presented in the appendix. Thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

MS is interesting and needs modifications:

1. The novelty of the MS should be included in the introduction.

2. English language editing is required.

3. References are relatively old. Some recent references should be included in the introduction and in SEM analysis 

e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fochx.2022.100438

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131947

https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102361

4. Sensory analysis should be performed to substantiate the texture analysis.

5. QDA will be preferred in this particular case.

6. In the methodology section the "statistical analysis" portion is missing

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear expert：

    Thank you for your suggestions and opinions on the manuscript. I have gained a lot from your suggestions, and I have also made modifications to the manuscript according to your suggestions. The specific modifications have been presented in the appendix. Thank you again.

Reviewer 3 Report

It's crucial that the meat sector use high-pressure processing technology. However, more research still needs to be done because the impact of various variables on the characteristics of muscle, minced meat, and myofibrillar proteins at high pressure is quite complex. 

 

Major concerns:

1. In lines 68-72, the authors pointed out that the water-holding capacity of closed-shell muscle increases when treated under 250 MPa. However, the authors have concluded that water-holding capacity decreased when they treated the scallops at 200 Mpa (lines 18-19). Explain the contradiction in these two statements.
2. Figure 6: The peak intensities increased with the increase in holding times. The authors attributed this to the α-helical structure in the protein being continuously stretched into the folded β-structure over the longer holding times. But figure 4, contradicts this statement, where the mass fraction of α-helix increased, and the mass fraction of β-sheet decreased with the prolonged holding times.
3. The writing quality must be improved a lot. The authors should have someone proficient in English to edit the paper. 

 

Minor concerns: 

 

 

 

1. At what temperatures did the authors conduct the UHP treatments?
2. Line 129: Change wavelength to wavenumber
3.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1. Figure 2 caption: no space in 'wavenumber.'
2. Rewrite lines 15-16. E.g., The mass fraction of the α-helix, the mass fraction of the β-sheet.
3. Line 167: 'After processing'? rewrite
4. Line 180: uncapitalize 'the'
5. Lines 196-197: Repeated text
6. Line 221: Repeated text
7. Lines 251-254: Text is unclear. Rewrite the sentence.
8. Lines 284-286: Repeated text
9. Line 335: Remove the open parenthesis
10. Lines 358-360: Rewrite the text.

Author Response

Dear expert：

    Thank you for your suggestions and opinions on the manuscript. I have gained a lot from your suggestions, and I have also made modifications to the manuscript according to your suggestions. The specific modifications have been presented in the appendix. Thank you again.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors' responses to my comments are satisfactory except for question #2. The response to question #2 is unclear, with many incomplete sentences. It's difficult to understand what the authors were trying to say. For example, the sentences had incomplete 'α-' and 'β-'. I also noticed a similar kind of incomplete text in the original manuscript.

no

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. From Figure 4, it can be seen that the mass fraction of the α-helix structure in the untreated adductor muscle of scallops is relatively high, and when an ultra-high pressure of 200MPa is applied, the α-helix structure begins to decrease, but the mass fraction of the α-helix structure has increased under the holding time of 2 and 3 minutes compared to the holding time of 1 minute. The extension of time has increased α-helix structure indicating that in terms of the holding time factor, but the overall trend of the α-helix is decreasing compared to untreated scallop adductor muscle, which leads to a decrease in the elasticity of the closed shell muscles of scallops. However, it also enhances the chewiness and taste of the closed shell muscles of scallops, which is reflected in sensory evaluation. I am sorry that the manuscript before Figure 6 had an incorrect version and has been revised in the new manuscript. I hope my description is clear and my answer can satisfy you.