The Importance of Micronutrient Adequacy in Obesity and the Potential of Microbiota Interventions to Support It

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is latest information and analysis on The importance of micronutrient adequacy in obesity and the potential of microbiota interventions to support this adequacy. Here are a few suggestions to enhance the manuscript.

Authors approach is mostly question based. Instead of question based, authors should propose the hypothesis

SEARCH CRITERIA SHOULD BE INCLUDED

What is the basis of collecting articles?

Need of performing this review should be addressed

1)    Improve the quality and quantity of abstract

2)    In the abstract, the author stated that scientific evidences on diet low in micronutrients reason for obesity is ambiguous - as his complete work on micronutrient and obesity how author will give this statement.

3)    The author is suggested to delete the animal studies, instead of that he suggested to give human studies

4)    How can author say unambiguous studies on the research article

5)    In the lines 316-317, the author stated that animal studies could be supportive to the humans – author is suggested to justify these lines

6)    Old references should be replaced witn new references. A review should reflect the latest trends.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking time to review our work. In the attachment we have uploaded detailed responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review carried out by the authors is well presented and covers a problem that affects a large part of society, especially developed countries. Obesity is a difficult disease to eradicate and these types of reviews help update and gather relevant facts and data. However, authors should take into consideration some aspects to improve the quality of the work.
1) Title: it is repetitive because it repeats “adequacy” twice. Review this title and narrow it down a bit.
2) A total of 188 articles have been referenced, however, this review does not indicate a material&methods section that indicates the search engines used, the parameters used to incorporate that article in the review or the exclusion parameters. What were the authors looking for to be able to use that article in this work? It is important that the review articles indicate the way in which they have been able to prepare this work.
3) The conclusions are quite brief considering the size of the article. They should be reviewed. I would separate “conclusions” from “recommendations for further research.”
4) The review should place more emphasis on differences by culture/race/population, this is necessary as this may influence the data and conclusions being drawn in this article. For example, Table 2 indicates micronutrients in groups of adults with different typologies, but if we analyze the references, examples 28 and 29, one population is Danish and the other is North American. This is very important.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We hope that our responses (see the attachment) and changes made to the manuscript addressed all of your concerns sufficiently and helped to improve the quality of the presented work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx