Ultrasound Improved the Non-Covalent Interaction of β-Lactoglobulin with Luteolin: Regulating Human Intestinal Microbiota and Conformational Epitopes Reduced Allergy Risks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This an interesting study of the interaction of Luteolin and beta-LG. However, the effect of ultrasound (US) seems not to be so clear described, and I am unsure about it effects. So this needs a more trorough described
When applying US the temperature increase in the fluid, and this need to be measured in order to understand the denaturation of the protein.
And more literature comparation with heat denaturation of Beta-lg could also improve the paper
Specific comments:
Material and methods: In general info about the type of instrument use is lacking
L79 This is a Low concentration of Beta-LG. I doubt whether this is food or instant formula relevant.
L81-82. What kind of ultrasonic systems is used (E.g. brand, sonotrode system, tip size). How much did the temperature increase, this is important according to whey protein denaturation
L159-171: The effect of US is not clear described
Figure 4 How much here is statistically significant and is one-way ANOVA the correct analysis here. Standard deviation should also be illustrated .
L259 However histamine is not lower than control- describe and explain
L340 is this the discussion section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The concept of the research article is interesting. However, in the present form, it required substantial major revision. The major comments are as follows;
Introduction looks very general, in the introduction section, write the novelty of the work and the problem statement clearly. In order to the improvement of the quality content author should refer or cite recent articles related to the interaction of milk compounds.
Section 3.1 (Infrared spectral analysis) should be rewritten as lot of grammar mistakes are there, also check in the whole manuscript.
Conclusion should be more detailed and brief.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors included all the suggested changes in the manuscript. Now it can be considered for publication