Revolutionizing Renewable Resources: Cutting-Edge Trends and Future Prospects in the Valorization of Oligosaccharides
, Nam Hyeon Kim 1,†, SeonJu Park 4, Younseo Park 1, Su-Jung Yeon 1,3, Kaliyan Barathikannan 1,3,5, Selvakumar Vijayalakshmi 1,3 and Deog-Hwan Oh 1,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review article entitled “Revolutionizing Renewable Resources: Cutting-Edge Trends and Future Prospects in the Valorization of Oligosaccharides” by Chelliah et al. where the authors tried to explain the role of oligosaccharides as prebiotics and the different ways of synthesis from lignocellulosic agro-byproducts and wastes. The authors mentioned different perspectives to explain the concept in an elaborate manner. The manuscript requires editing both in language and in the description before it can be considered for publication.
1. Fig.1: The resolution of the figure needs to be improved. Autohydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis are not clear in the figure. Coloring for cellulose and hemicellulose does not match with the macro/microfibrils. What does ‘GEP’ stands for in the figure? It will be clear to give description of abbreviations below the table.
2. Line 159: Common ways of representation of severity factor is logR0 instead of Log(R0).
3. Tables: Table legends are very descriptive and lengthy. It’s better to provide the legend more precisely on what the text in the table meant to describe. Inaddition the text in table 1 and 2 is very lengthy. It can be shortened as there are cited literature.
4. Grammar needs to be checked as for example the word ‘oligosaccharide’ is singular and ‘oligosaccharides’ is plural. When ‘GOS’ is ‘galactooligosacchrides’ then the sentences need to be corrected to plural and use ‘are’ instead of ‘is’.
5. Line 354: ‘kCal/g’ to ‘kcal/g’.
6. ‘MOS’ some places in the manuscript it is ‘mannanooligosacchrides’ while at some places it is ‘mannan-oligosacchrides’. It’s better to have a uniform description everywhere in the article.
7. Line 549: ‘xylotrise (X3)’ to’ xylotriose (X3)’.
8. Line 553: ‘12% sodium hydroxide’ Is it w/w or w/v or v/v?
9. Table 4: units for the column ‘yield’ is not clear and uniform.
10. Line 673: ‘biological. 126.’ Check the typo error. remove in bold.
11. Line 705: what is SFT?
12. Table 5: yield values can be rounded.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome minor typo errors and grammatical errors needs correction.
Author Response
Respond to review comments 1
The review article entitled “Revolutionizing Renewable Resources: Cutting-Edge Trends and Future Prospects in the Valorization of Oligosaccharides” by Chelliah et al. where the authors tried to explain the role of oligosaccharides as prebiotics and the different ways of synthesis from lignocellulosic agro-byproducts and wastes. The authors mentioned different perspectives to explain the concept in an elaborate manner. The manuscript requires editing both in language and in the description before it can be considered for publication.
The authors are truly thankful for the reviewer's insightful feedback, which helped refine the manuscript, making it more reader-friendly and free of grammatical and conceptual errors. All the changes were highlighted in the manuscript.
- The resolution of the figure needs to be improved. Autohydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis are not clear in the figure. Coloring for cellulose and hemicellulose does not match with the macro/microfibrils. What does ‘GEP’ stands for in the figure? It will be clear to give description of abbreviations below the table.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the Figure 1.
- Line 159: Common ways of representation of severity factor is logR0instead of Log(R0).
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Tables: Table legends are very descriptive and lengthy. It’s better to provide the legend more precisely on what the text in the table meant to describe. Inaddition the text in table 1 and 2 is very lengthy. It can be shortened as there are cited literature.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Table 1. Represent a key resource for understanding how autohydrolysis is applied to raw ma-terial conditioning wastes, detailing its effectiveness, optimal conditions, and benefits across waste treatment scenarios.
Table 2. Provides a concise overview of studies on applying autohydrolysis to waste from dif-ferent stages of processing or consumption. It serves as an essential tool for those in waste man-agement and sustainability, presenting the effectiveness of autohydrolysis across multiple sce-narios and conditions.
- Grammar needs to be checked as for example the word ‘oligosaccharide’ is singular and ‘oligosaccharides’ is plural. When ‘GOS’ is ‘galactooligosacchrides’ then the sentences need to be corrected to plural and use ‘are’ instead of ‘is’.
As per the reviewer valuable comments throughout the manuscript the grammatical errors has been corrected
- Line 354: ‘kCal/g’ to ‘kcal/g’.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- ‘MOS’ some places in the manuscript it is ‘mannanooligosacchrides’ while at some places it is ‘mannan-oligosacchrides’. It’s better to have a uniform description everywhere in the article.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Line 549: ‘xylotrise (X3)’ to’ xylotriose (X3)’.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Line 553: ‘12% sodium hydroxide’ Is it w/w or w/v or v/v?
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Table 4: units for the column ‘yield’ is not clear and uniform.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Line 673: ‘biological. 126.’ Check the typo error. remove in bold.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
- Line 705: what is SSF?
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
A particular method of interest employs heat-resistant inulinase for generating solid state fermentation (SSF) (E.C.2.4.199)
- Table 5: yield values can be rounded.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this review, Chelliah et al. summarize the latest trends and future prospects in valorizing oligosaccharides as renewable resources.
General comments:
The manuscript is interesting, generally clear, and well-structured. However, in the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript has some shortcomings. Below, the reviewer has provided some remarks on the text because it is often vague. Furthermore, the reviewer made additional suggestions for more in-depth manuscript analyses. Key critical points are:
1) Authors should be careful about abbreviated names of microorganisms. The full name is written only at the first mention. After that, the abbreviated name of the microorganism should be written.
2) Due to the shallow resolution in Figure 1, the text is complicated to read, and the explanations overlap.
3) The titles of Figure 1 and Tables 1-7 should not be descriptive. Titles must be informative and present the content of the Figure or Tables. Explanations should be written in the text of the chapter to which the Tables or Figures refer.
4) Authors should separate the text in the Table’s columns because it is not readable this way.
5) No reference was written according to the Reference Style Guide for MDPI Journals.
Given these shortcomings, the manuscript requires major revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Specific comments:
Line 115: the water temperature
Line 121: plays – play
Line 122: effectively – effective
Line 139: breakdowns
Line 143: the treatment – treatment
Line 196: hydrolysis – hydrolyses
Line 217: whole text: byproducts or by-products
Line 377: a dietary – dietary
Lines 567, 572, 631, 661, 691: First author et al. [Ref. No]
Line 707: 100 mL – 100 mL was
Table 5: Overall is not a Table title. Yield (%) – please explain what a percentage represents.
Line 778: in this study
Line 822: not only dictates – dictates not only…
Table 6: Konjac Glucomannan (KGM)
Line 883: suggests – suggest
Line 884: employs – employ
Appendix B: Is it necessary?
Author Response
Respond to review comments 2
The manuscript is interesting, generally clear, and well-structured. However, in the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript has some shortcomings. Below, the reviewer has provided some remarks on the text because it is often vague. Furthermore, the reviewer made additional suggestions for more in-depth manuscript analyses. Key critical points are:
The authors were truly thankful for the reviewer's valuable feedback, which helped improve the manuscript by making it more reader-friendly and free from grammatical and conceptual errors. All the changes were highlighted in the manuscript
1) Authors should be careful about abbreviated names of microorganisms. The full name is written only at the first mention. After that, the abbreviated name of the microorganism should be written.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
2) Due to the shallow resolution in Figure 1, the text is complicated to read, and the explanations overlap.
The figure 1 was edited with better resolution and the DPI has been increased to 600
3) The titles of Figure 1 and Tables 1-7 should not be descriptive. Titles must be informative and present the content of the Figure or Tables. Explanations should be written in the text of the chapter to which the Tables or Figures refer.
As per the reviewers valuable suggestion the titles of the figure and table more clear and simple for understanding
4) Authors should separate the text in the Table’s columns because it is not readable this way.
As per the reviewers valuable suggestion the corrections were incorporated in the table
5) No reference was written according to the Reference Style Guide for MDPI Journals.
As per the reviewers valuable suggestion the reference section has been edited according to MDPI format
Specific comments:
Line 115: the water temperature
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 121: plays – play
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 122: effectively – effective
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 139: breakdowns
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 143: the treatment – treatment
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 196: hydrolysis – hydrolyses
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 217: whole text: byproducts or by-products
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 377: a dietary – dietary
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Lines 567, 572, 631, 661, 691: First author et al. [Ref. No]
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 707: 100 mL – 100 mL was
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Table 5: Overall is not a Table title. Yield (%) – please explain what a percentage represents.
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 778: in this study
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 822: not only dictates – dictates not only…
As per reviewer valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Table 6: Konjac Glucomannan (KGM)
As per reviewer's valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 883: suggests – suggest
As per reviewer's valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Line 884: employs – employ
As per reviewer's valuable suggestion, the corrections were effected in the manuscript
Appendix B: Is it necessary?
Appendix B has been deleted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this review, the authors present a discussion on production and applications of oligosaccharides, with emphasis on biological production and utilization of lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks. The specific things that are reviewed include galactooligosaccharides, fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, isomaltooligosaccharides, and mannooligosaccharides. I generally found the manuscript to be well-referenced with resepect to relevant literature. However, the layout and presentation of studies across all sections could be improved significantly.
The manuscript as a whole has parts that are redundant, and there is some level of disconnectedness between the sections. It almost seems as if different co-authors wrote different parts, and they were combined without much effort in making the manuscript more coherent/cohesive. As one example, I don’t quite understand why both Table 1 and Table 2 need to be included separately in the text, in different sections. I would encourage the authors to revise the text with special emphasis on having a concise manuscript with continuity between sections.
I am having some difficulty reading Figure 1, so please ensure that a high-quality version is used if that is necessary. Please also make sure that the figure caption includes adequate references for content that is adapted from other sources. Beyond Figure 1, there are no other figures in the manuscript. I encourage the authors to consider the ways in which figures might be incorporated to support the discussion of studies throughout the text. Finally, please double check the requirements for a graphical abstract for this journal to ensure that this figure is being used appropriately. In general, I think all the figure and table captions, and the text within the tables, could be improved with respect to how they are worded.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript would benefit significantly from a thorough review for English language, word choice, and sentence structure.
Author Response
Respond to review comments 3
- In this review, the authors present a discussion on production and applications of oligosaccharides, with emphasis on biological production and utilization of lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks. The specific things that are reviewed include galactooligosaccharides, fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, isomaltooligosaccharides, and mannooligosaccharides. I generally found the manuscript to be well-referenced with resepect to relevant literature. However, the layout and presentation of studies across all sections could be improved significantly.
The authors are truly thankful for the reviewer's insightful feedback, which has helped enhance the manuscript, making it more reader-friendly and free from grammatical and conceptual errors. All the changes were highlighted in the manuscript
- The manuscript as a whole has parts that are redundant, and there is some level of disconnectedness between the sections. It almost seems as if different co-authors wrote different parts, and they were combined without much effort in making the manuscript more coherent/cohesive. As one example, I don’t quite understand why both Table 1 and Table 2 need to be included separately in the text, in different sections. I would encourage the authors to revise the text with special emphasis on having a concise manuscript with continuity between sections.
We really appreciate the reviewer's helpful comments. We agree that some parts of our paper were repetitive and didn't flow well together. This might have happened because different co-authors wrote different sections. We've taken a good look at your feedback, especially about Tables 1 and 2 being in separate sections, and have made a lot of changes. We worked hard to cut out unnecessary parts and make sure everything in the paper connects better. This included looking closely at the tables and deciding how to best use them to make the paper clearer. Thanks to these changes, we think our paper is now much better and easier to follow.
- Through I am having some difficulty reading Figure 1, so please ensure that a high-quality version is used if that is necessary. Please also make sure that the figure caption includes adequate references for content that is adapted from other sources. Beyond Figure 1, there are no other figures in the manuscript. I encourage the authors to consider the ways in which figures might be incorporated to support the discussion of studies throughout the text. Finally, please double check the requirements for a graphical abstract for this journal to ensure that this figure is being used appropriately. In general, I think all the figure and table captions, and the text within the tables, could be improved with respect to how they are worded.
Thank you for the reviewer feedback. We've updated Figure 1 with a high-quality version and ensured the caption includes all necessary references. We appreciated your suggestion to add more figures to enhance our manuscript's discussion and have reviewed the journal's requirements for a graphical abstract to use our figures correctly. We've also improved the wording of our figure and table captions and the text within the tables.
Figure 1. Visually summarizes the conversion of agricultural by-products into valuable prebiotics. It outlines the steps from collecting waste materials like husks and leaves to processing them into prebiotics, which support beneficial microorganisms. The diagram may show the treatments mechanical, chemical, or biological used to break down these by-products for gut bacteria nourishment, highlighting important chemical and enzymatic processes or fermentation involved in the transformation.
Figure 2. Prebiotics Market Size, Share, Trends, By Ingredients (Fructo-Oligosaccharide, Galacto-oligosaccharides), By Product (Dietary Supplements, Dairy Food), By Source (Roots and Grains, Vegetables), By End-use, and By Region Forecast to 2030.
Figure 3. Combining autohydrolysis with catalytic hydrolysis to enhance the value of hemicellulose production.
Figure 4. Functional Health effect of Xylooligosacharide towards humans and animals
Figure 5: Innovations in Producing Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) from Lignocellulosic Biomass with Bacterial and Fungal Enzymes
Figure 6. Advances in Mannooligosaccharides (MOS) Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass Using Bacterial and Fungal Enzymes
Figure 7. Innovations in Producing Isomaltooligosaccharides (IMOs) from Lignocellulosic Bio-mass using Bacterial and fungal enzyme
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not carefully consider the reviewer's comments and did not try to address every one of them.
1) Authors should be careful about abbreviated names of microorganisms. The full name is written only at the first mention. After that, the abbreviated name of the microorganism should be written.
Example:
- Line 448: Klyveromyces marxianus; Line 462: Klyveromyces lactis should be written as K. lactis because the genus Klyveromyces was already mentioned earlier in the text.
- In all Tables, the full names of microorganisms should be written as abbreviated names.
Line 676: Lactobacillus gasseri (italic) DSM 20,604 (not italic)
Line 723: Apostichopus japonicus – italic
Line 759: Aureo-basidium pullulans KFCC 10245 - Aureobasidium pullulans KFCC 10245
2) Due to the shallow resolution in Figure 1, the text is complicated to read, and the explanations overlap with the right arrow.
3) The titles of Figure 1 and Tables 1-7 are still written descriptively, which should not be. Titles must be informative and present the content of the Figure or Tables. Explanations should be written in the text of the chapter to which the Tables or Figures refer.
Figure 4 - correct title with upper and lower case letters.
The manuscript is recommended for publication in Fermentation with minor further revisions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Respond to Reviewers 2 comments
The authors did not carefully consider the reviewer's comments and did not try to address every one of them.
The authors are truly thankful for the reviewer's insightful feedback, which helped refine the manuscript, making it more reader-friendly and free of grammatical and conceptual errors. All the changes were highlighted in the manuscript.
1) Authors should be careful about abbreviated names of microorganisms. The full name is written only at the first mention. After that, the abbreviated name of the microorganism should be written.
Example:
- Line 448: Klyveromyces marxianus; Line 462: Klyveromyces lactis should be written as K. lactis because the genus Klyveromyces was already mentioned earlier in the text.
- In all Tables, the full names of microorganisms should be written as abbreviated names.
Line 676: Lactobacillus gasseri (italic) DSM 20,604 (not italic)
Line 723: Apostichopus japonicus – italic
Line 759: Aureo-basidium pullulans KFCC 10245 - Aureobasidium pullulans KFCC 10245
Following the valuable suggestion from the reviewer, the manuscript now includes abbreviations provided subsequently for clarity.
2) Due to the shallow resolution in Figure 1, the text is complicated to read, and the explanations overlap with the right arrow.
The Figure 1 resolution was increased to 600 DPI and further the figure has been edited for better resolution
3) The titles of Figure 1 and Tables 1-7 are still written descriptively, which should not be. Titles must be informative and present the content of the Figure or Tables. Explanations should be written in the text of the chapter to which the Tables or Figures refer.
As per the reviewer valuable suggestion the content of the Figure 1 and table 1-7 has been consisted and clear for understanding
4) Figure 4 - correct title with upper and lower case letters.
Corrections effected in the manuscript
5) The manuscript is recommended for publication in Fermentation with minor further revisions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language; Minor editing of English language required
In accordance with the reviewer's valuable suggestion, the manuscript's English language has been edited by a native English speaker. This editing process focused on clarifying sentence structures for better readability and ensuring tense consistency throughout the passages.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript can benefit from additional (minor) review of English language throughout, with emphasis on brevity/being more concise. Many of the figure and table captions can also benefit from revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis manuscript can benefit from additional (minor) review of English language throughout, with emphasis on brevity/being more concise. Many of the figure and table captions can also benefit from revision.
Author Response
Respond to Reviewers 3 comments
Comments on the Quality of English Language
This manuscript can benefit from additional (minor) review of English language throughout, with emphasis on brevity/being more concise. Many of the figure and table captions can also benefit from revision.
Based on the valuable suggestion from the reviewer, the manuscript's English language was revised with the help of a native English speaker. This revision aimed to clarify sentence structures for better readability and to ensure tense consistency throughout the passages
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
