Lignocellulose-Derived Arabinose for Energy and Chemicals Synthesis through Microbial Cell Factories: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this review manuscript, the authors present a synthesis of literature on arabinose for value-added products through microbial cell factories. Arabinose is justified as an important feedstock, and literature is thoroughly reviewed as to what products can result from arabinose conversion. Overall, this is a sound review with ample literature on previously published laboratory studies, which may serve as a basis for finding future directions for research, particularly for pentose(s) utilization. Please see the following for a few specific remarks -

Abstract: I would advise against the use of “etc.” wherever possible. Also I’m not sure that 2,3-butanediol would technically be classified as a sugar alcohol. A suggestion for rewriting a part of the abstract (lines 26-29) could be something like – “The use of L-Ara is also majorly found in medical and pharmaceutical sectors to treat several conditions, including mineral absorption disorder, constipation, and diabetes, among others. In recent years, there has been a rising interest to synthesize various sugar alcohols and their derivatives, including arabitol, xylitol, and 2,3-butanediol through modification in…”

Page 2, Lines 51-52: This sentence may benefit from reference(s) to relevant literature about hemicellulose structure, particularly for an unfamiliar reader. For example (among others, potentially) - Rao J, et al. Hemicellulose: Structure, chemical modification, and application. Progress in Polymer Science (2023), 140, 101675; & Pauly, et al. Hemicellulose biosynthesis. Planta (2013), 238, 627-642.

Page 3, Figure 1: Please double check the quality of the figure here, it is appearing with pretty low resolution on my screen. Apologies if this is an issue only on my end. This appears to be the case in general for all figures.

Page 3, Line 99: Consider rewriting this a little bit so that there is consistency in how mass % is given – for example “…and apple pomace are rich in pectin (12-35% mass) with insignificant amount of lignin (2% mass) as compared to the LCB.”

Page 4-5, Table 2: Please consider using a consistent number of significant digits when reporting the data here. It is likely sufficient to round every value to the nearest integer (rather than, for example, 19.80, 9.01, and 69.09 for orange peels).

Page 14, conclusion: Consider adding some more discussion/detail here about the importance of the work and of arabinose as a feedstock. For example, it is mentioned previously that arabinose is the second most abundant pentose in lignocellulosic biomass; that may be worth underscoring again here (borrowing some details from section 2.1). It may also be helpful to the reader to highlight a few key products that have been successfully produced from arabinose, particularly if there are any such things at pilot and/or industrial scale (perhaps using information previously shown in Table 1).

This manuscript would benefit from a thorough review for English language and grammar. There are several instances where a sufficient proofread would benefit the ultimate readability of the work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review comments, it really helps us for making a quality manuscript. The answers to the comments are attached herewith and also the changes are highlighted in the uploaded manuscript.

Thanks and regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Greetings, Editor thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the article. I reviewed the article with title `` Lignocellulose-derived Arabinose for Energy and Chemicals Synthesis through Microbial Cell Factories: A Review``.  There are some flaws which need to be corrected. Please consider these suggestions as listed below.

1.       The title seems good, but the abstract seems to be bit strange. Please add one more introductory line of your objective in beginning of abstract. Highlight the core finding.

2.       Select only 5 most suitable keywords. Revise it.

3.       Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the future research work.

4.       Page 2, Line 49 need another reference with existing reference 3. Cite this one- Preparation and characterization of nanosized lignin from oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) biomass as a novel emulsifying agent.

5.       Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed. Please target the specific gap such as 2015-2021 etc.  

6.       The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.  

7.       Several irrelevant references are there, please take a strong look in revision.

8.       All abbreviations should be same and defined in the beginning. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs on several spots in the paper. 

9.       What is needed to write this review?

10.    Page 2, Line 51 also need a reference, cite this- Thermal degradation and kinetics stability studies of oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis) biomass-derived lignin nanoparticle and its application as an emulsifying agent.

11.    Provide high quality of Figure 1 and 2.

12.    Page 3, Line 91 need another reference with existing reference 14. Utilization of lignocellulosic biomass: A practical journey towards the development of emulsifying agent

13.    The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.

14.    Where is section 2.0? Author directly moved to 2.1.?

15.    Please provide space between number and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs on several spots in the paper. 

16.    The scientific remarks are missing from the discussion section. Please carefully revise.

17.    Conclusion should be revised carefully, it’s very strange and massive.

18.    Section 6 should be renamed by Conclusion and Future perspectives. Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings, highlight relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect.

19.    Add a comparative profile discussion section.

20.    To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, Major level English language should be thoroughly checked. Please revise your paper accordingly since several language issue occurs on several spots in the paper.

21.    Reference formatting need carefully revision. All must be consistent in one formate. Please follow the journal guidelines. Entire article formatting is very strange. Please follow the journal guidelines.

To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, Major level English language should be thoroughly checked. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review comments, it really helps us for making a quality manuscript. The answers to the comments are attached herewith and also the changes are highlighted in the uploaded manuscript.

Thanks and regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted in the present form. Authors answered all of my inquiries. Thanks