Bioconversion of a Peanut Oil Processing By-Product into a Novel α-Glucosidase Inhibitor: Hemi-Pyocyanin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscrip is very interesting. Minor remarks:

1. very long sentences in the text that make it difficult to understand the context

2. Figure 7 is illegible

3. a lot of chaos in table editing, table 2 completely different than 3 and 4

4. in such a large number of results, a statistical evaluation would help to clarify the most important aspects

5. the description of the methodology should be improved for better readability. In this form, it is difficult to fully understand the protocol of the procedure

The sentences are quite long so it is sometimes hard to understand the meaning.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Advancer

We feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. We have gone through all the suggestions cautiously and made the revisions accordingly, and all amended parts have been typed in red in the revised manuscript. Regarding the significant Advancer’s comments, the Title of this work was modified, we did the statistics for all the data of Figures 2, 3, 4, and 7. Together with HPLC, and GCMS, we also added the ¹H-NMR (600 MHz, CDCl₃) and ¹³C-NMR (151 MHz, CDCl₃) for more careful confirmation of the purified compound as hemi-pyocyanin. The English editing was also carefully conducted. Finally, we would like to express our deep thanks for your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. We hope our response is satisfactory.

Looking forward to hearing from you.   

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Van Bon Nguyen, PhD. Institute of Biotechnology and Environment, Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot 630000, Vietnam

Reviewer # 1

The manuscript is very interesting. Minor remarks:

Reply: Deeply thanks for the positive comments and your interesting view intended for our overview work.

1. very long sentences in the text that make it difficult to understand the context

Reply: The English of this manuscript was carefully checked and revised accordingly the comments.

2. Figure 7 is illegible

Reply: This figure (now Figure A1.) was enhance the quality.

3. a lot of chaos in table editing, table 2 completely different than 3 and 4

Reply: Table 3 and  Table 4 (now Table  A1) were reformatted like Table 2.

4. in such a large number of results, a statistical evaluation would help to clarify the most important aspects.

Reply: The statistics analysis was done, the results were added in Figure 2, 3, 4, and 7, and the method for statistics analysis was also added in the Material and Method section.

5. the description of the methodology should be improved for better readability. In this form, it is difficult to fully understand the protocol of the procedure

Reply: The methodology was revised. One more time, we would like to pay our deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for the enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest a scientific content writer should read the manuscript. 

The research work entitled ”Bioconversion of Peanut Oil Processing by-Product into Hemi-pyocyanin and Its Novel Anti-α-Glucosidase Effect” by Nguyen et al is very interesting. The authors converted groundnut cake into hemi-pyocyanin, a heterocyclic, nitrogenous compound. The objectives, methodology and discussion described in the manuscript is understandable. The manuscript should be accepted after inclusion of the following point:

- For the confirmation purpose, I suggest the authors should use 1H NMR, 13 CNMR and nitrogen-NMR to characterize the extracted and purified hemi-pyocyanin. The result obtained from all the NMR results need to be included in the manuscript.

 

I suggest a scientific content writer should read the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Advancer

We feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. We have gone through all the suggestions cautiously and made the revisions accordingly, and all amended parts have been typed in red in the revised manuscript. Regarding the significant Advancer’s comments, the Title of this work was modified, we did the statistics for all the data of Figures 2, 3, 4, and 7. Together with HPLC, and GCMS, we also added the ¹H-NMR (600 MHz, CDCl₃) and ¹³C-NMR (151 MHz, CDCl₃) for more careful confirmation of the purified compound as hemi-pyocyanin. The English editing was also carefully conducted. Finally, we would like to express our deep thanks for your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. We hope our response is satisfactory.

Looking forward to hearing from you.   

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Van Bon Nguyen, PhD. Institute of Biotechnology and Environment, Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot 630000, Vietnam

Reviewer # 2

I suggest a scientific content writer should read the manuscript. 

The research work entitled ”Bioconversion of Peanut Oil Processing by-Product into Hemi-pyocyanin and Its Novel Anti-α-Glucosidase Effect” by Nguyen et al is very interesting. The authors converted groundnut cake into hemi-pyocyanin, a heterocyclic, nitrogenous compound. The objectives, methodology and discussion described in the manuscript is understandable. The manuscript should be accepted after inclusion of the following point:

For the confirmation purpose, I suggest the authors should use 1H NMR, 13 CNMR and nitrogen-NMR to characterize the extracted and purified hemi-pyocyanin. The result obtained from all the NMR results need to be included in the manuscript.

Reply: Deeply thanks for the positive comments and your interesting view intended for our overview work. This compound (hemi-pyocyanin) was carefully identified in our earlier work [1]. In this work, we used the referenced compound hemi-pyocyanin [1] for controlling the hemi-pyocyanin biosynthesis by the same bacterial strain via HPLC. The isolation of this yellow compound was also conducted same method as the previous work [1]. As such, we used GCMS and HPLC analysis to rapidly confirm this purified compound is hemi-pyocyanin. HPLC analysis has been accepted for confirmation of the compound produced by microbial fermentation in some current publications [2,3,..].  However, in consideration of your valuable comments, for more careful confirmation data, we also added the ¹H-NMR (600 MHz, CDCl₃) and ¹³C-NMR (151 MHz, CDCl₃). We have no nitrogen-NMR technology, thus, we are sorry may not add this nitrogen-NMR data. One more time, we would like to pay our deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for the enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.

[1]. Nguyen, T.H.; Wang, S.L; Nguyen, A.D.; Doan, M.D.; Tran, T.N.; Doan, C.T.; Nguyen, V.B. Novel α-Amylase inhibitor hemi-pyocyanin produced by microbial conversion of chitinous discards. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 283.

[2]. ran LT, Techato K, Nguyen VB, Wang S-L, Nguyen AD, Phan TQ, Doan MD, Phoungthong K. Utilization of Cassava Wastewater for Low-Cost Production of Prodigiosin via Serratia marcescens TNU01 Fermentation and Its Novel Potent α-Glucosidase Inhibitory Effect. Molecules. 2021; 26(20):6270.

[3]. Nguyen, V.B.; Wang, S.-L.; Nguyen, A.D.; Phan, T.Q.; Techato, K.; Pradit, S. Bioproduction of Prodigiosin from Fishery Processing Waste Shrimp Heads and Evaluation of Its Potential Bioactivities. Fishes 2021, 6,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Line 17, what is meant by 14-bioreactor? Does the digit represent volume??

2. In HPLC graph, give both sample and standard peaks.

3. Statistical analysis is missing in the methodology section which seems that the data was not statistically analyzed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Advancer

We feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. We have gone through all the suggestions cautiously and made the revisions accordingly, and all amended parts have been typed in red in the revised manuscript. Regarding the significant Advancer’s comments, the Title of this work was modified, we did the statistics for all the data of Figures 2, 3, 4, and 7. Together with HPLC, and GCMS, we also added the ¹H-NMR (600 MHz, CDCl₃) and ¹³C-NMR (151 MHz, CDCl₃) for more careful confirmation of the purified compound as hemi-pyocyanin. The English editing was also carefully conducted. Finally, we would like to express our deep thanks for your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. We hope our response is satisfactory.

Looking forward to hearing from you.   

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Van Bon Nguyen, PhD. Institute of Biotechnology and Environment, Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot 630000, Vietnam

Reviewer # 3

1. Line 17, what is meant by 14-bioreactor? Does the digit represent volume??

Reply: We mistake. It should be “14 L-bioreactor system”. Thanks for indicating the error.

2. In HPLC graph, give both sample and standard peaks.

Reply: The HPLC of both referenced compound and purified compound were added.

3. Statistical analysis is missing in the methodology section which seems that the data was not statistically analyzed.

Reply: Reply: The statistics analysis was done, the results were added in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 7, and the method for statistics analysis was also added in the Material and Method section. One more time, we would like to pay our deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for the enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Not applicable.