Differential Analysis of Pomelo Peel Fermentation by Cordyceps militaris Based on Untargeted Metabolomics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Upon reviewing the material, I have identified five essential recommendations for enhancement in addition to the study.

Elaborate on the procedures used for the isolation, culture, and characterization of microorganisms by specifying the exact processes you study. This may aid in reproducing the research and confirming its results.

Exploring a broader variety of agro-industrial wastes may provide a more thorough understanding of how well the isolated microorganisms work under various circumstances.

If you will compare the performance of the isolated microorganisms with other established strains in the realm of biogas generation. This will assist in emphasizing the benefits or distinctive abilities of the separated strains.

Perform extended research to evaluate the durability and flexibility of the microorganisms in different operating scenarios. This involves analyzing their effectiveness over time and their reaction to substrate composition, temperature, and pH changes.

Evaluate the economic feasibility and environmental consequences of using isolated microbes in large-scale biogas generation. This should include a cost-benefit analysis and an evaluation of the possible decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.

The reference section should be expanded with new studies.

1. Best regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A brief summary 

Metabolites and metabolic pathways in the fermentation broth of pomelo (Citrus maxima) peel under the action of fungus (Cordyceps militaris) enzymes were investigated. The aim of the work was to find ways to create value-added agricultural by-products based on waste utilization using pomelo peel as an example. More than 400 metabolites were identified in the fermentation broth after 0, 2, 6, and 10 days of fermentation including amino acids, carbohydrates, vitamins and coenzymes, antioxidants, biogenic amines, nucleosides and nucleotides and other bioactive compounds. Significant alterations in flavonoid composition were found after fermentation, suggesting potential biotransformation of grapefruit peel by Cordyceps militaris.

Broad comments 

The manuscript details the results on the processing of measurements by different methods. But the discussion of these results is practically absent. The conclusions of the work are also sparingly and unclearly stated.

The references provided are sufficient. Works relevant to the topic of publication are cited.

Specific comments 

Line 14: change KEGG to Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)

Line 134: QC - need to disclose the abbreviation

Line 135: RSD - eliminate reduction

Table 2: In Table 2, some items should be labeled with asterisks or numbers, and there should be appropriate explanations below the table (they are there, but should be given as an explanation of Table 2, not as a paragraph of text).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Subject: Review of Manuscript processes-2922075

 

Dear Authors,

 

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Differential Analysis of Cordyceps militaris Fermentation on Pomelo Peel Based on Untargeted Metabolomics" submitted to Processes under Manuscript ID processes-2922075. Overall, the study presents valuable insights into the fermentation process of grapefruit peels by Cordyceps militaris and its effects on the metabolite composition. However, several improvements are necessary to enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

1. Grammatical and Language Corrections:

   While the manuscript is generally well-written, there are instances where grammatical errors and awkward phrasing detract from the clarity of the text. I recommend a thorough proofreading to correct these issues and ensure a smoother flow of information throughout the manuscript.

 

2. Clarity of Figure 2:

   Figure 2 requires further clarification. The content depicted in the figure should be clearly explained to facilitate understanding for the readers. Additional details or annotations may be necessary to elucidate the information presented in the figure effectively.

 

Overall, the study contributes valuable findings to the field of food process engineering and functional foods development. Addressing the mentioned concerns will significantly improve the manuscript's quality and readability.

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Subject: Review of Manuscript processes-2922075

 

Dear Authors,

 

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Differential Analysis of Cordyceps militaris Fermentation on Pomelo Peel Based on Untargeted Metabolomics" submitted to Processes under Manuscript ID processes-2922075. Overall, the study presents valuable insights into the fermentation process of grapefruit peels by Cordyceps militaris and its effects on the metabolite composition. However, several improvements are necessary to enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

1. Grammatical and Language Corrections:

   While the manuscript is generally well-written, there are instances where grammatical errors and awkward phrasing detract from the clarity of the text. I recommend a thorough proofreading to correct these issues and ensure a smoother flow of information throughout the manuscript.

 

2. Clarity of Figure 2:

   Figure 2 requires further clarification. The content depicted in the figure should be clearly explained to facilitate understanding for the readers. Additional details or annotations may be necessary to elucidate the information presented in the figure effectively.

 

Overall, the study contributes valuable findings to the field of food process engineering and functional foods development. Addressing the mentioned concerns will significantly improve the manuscript's quality and readability.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no other comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account all my comments on the manuscript text. I have no new comments.