Bioconversion of Alternative Substrates for the Biosynthesis of HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors by Aspergillus spp. Strains with Antimicrobial Potential
, Rosileide F. da S. Andrade 2 and Galba M. Campos-Takaki 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present study demonstrated the biotechnological potential of Aspergillus ffavus UCP 0316 in the direct production of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with characteristics similar to simvastatin, showing the possibility of using other species of the genus Aspergillus to obtain the molecule, besides its applicability to the pharmaceutical industry. This manuscript contains a lot of editing errors and repetition, and the author should carefully revise it. I have only listed some of the errors.
Introduction: This part is very superficial, the authors should rewrite and highlight the importance and significance of their work.
1）Line 47, "Monascus ruber and Aspergillus terreus" changed to "M. ruber and A. terreus"
2) Line 49, "Aspergillus terreus" changed to "A. terreus"
3) Line 61, Aspergillus flavus should be typed in italic
4) Line 65, 82, 106, 128, 287, 303，321, 442"Aspergillus terreus UCP 1276 and Aspergillus flavus UCP 0316", the generic name of Aspergillus should be abbreviated. When the same genus name appears for the second time and after, it should be abbreviated. Please double check the manuscript.
5) Line 80, please check "30 m\l of"
6) Line 92, "45g/L" changed to 45 g/L. A space needs to be left between numbers and units. Please double check the manuscript.
7) Line 92, "4,0g/L" changed to "4.0 g/L", please check similar error.
8) Line 92-94, please double check this sentence.
9) Line 108, "3,6,9,12,15,18", A space needs to be left behand the comma.
10) Line 153-154, please check the reference format.
11) Line 154-155, Candida albicans should be typed in italic.
12) Line 157, check "102 spores/mL"
13) Line 152-239, please check these paragraphs, they maybe repeat and redundant.
14) Line 263, 10μl changed to 10 μl
15) Line 295, check 1.5 x 10^8 CFU/mL
16) Line 298, 10mm changed to 10 mm
17) Line 332, A. ffavus should be typed in italic.
18) Line 337, check " 0.0150 "
19) Line 381, "4. Discussion", the title should be modified.
20) Figure 4, A quantitative result should be provided.
21) "[25,26] describe the use of glucose, lactose, fructose, and glycerol as more ...", this sentence should be rewritten.
22) "According to [27],", simialr sentence should be rewritten.
23) the references should be double checked and revised according to the style of Journal.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
This manuscript contains a lot of editing errors and repetition, and the author should carefully revise it.
Author Response
REFEREE 1
We would like to express thank you for revision of the manuscript. We are accepted all suggestions and the comments.
Thank you for very kind reviewers who identified areas of our manuscript that needed so many or modifications. All suggestions were done in red color for both reviews. I will hope the article is considered for publication in publication in the renowned Fermentation Journal.
Galba Takaki
We followed all solicitations and inclusions of the manuscript.
Introduction: We rewrote the Introduction.
1）Line 47, "Monascus ruber and Aspergillus terreus" changed to "M. ruber and A. terreus"
We done.
2) Line 49, "Aspergillus terreus" changed to "A. terreus"
We done
3) Line 61, Aspergillus flavus should be typed in italic
We done
4) Line 65, 82, 106, 128, 287, 303，321, 442"Aspergillus terreus UCP 1276 and Aspergillus flavus UCP 0316", the generic name of Aspergillus should be abbreviated. When the same genus name appears for the second time and after, it should be abbreviated. Please double check the manuscript.
We done
5) Line 80, please check "30 m\l of"
We revised.
6) Line 92, "45g/L" changed to 45 g/L. A space needs to be left between numbers and units. Please double check the manuscript.
We done.
7) Line 92, "4,0g/L" changed to "4.0 g/L", please check similar error.
We done.
8) Line 92-94, please double check this sentence.
We done.
9) Line 108, "3,6,9,12,15,18", A space needs to be left behand the comma.
We done.
10) Line 153-154, please check the reference format.
We done
11) Line 154-155, Candida albicans should be typed in italic.
We done.
12) Line 157, check "102 spores/mL"
We done.
13) Line 152-239, please check these paragraphs, they maybe repeat and redundant.
We done.
14) Line 263, 10μl changed to 10 μl
We done.
15) Line 295, check 1.5 x 10^8 CFU/mL
We done.
16) Line 298, 10mm changed to 10 mm
We done.
17) Line 332, A. ffavus should be typed in italic.
We done.
18) Line 337, check " 0.0150 "
We done.
19) Line 381, "4. Discussion", the title should be modified.
We done.
20) Figure 4, A quantitative result should be provided.
We done.
21) "[25,26] describe the use of glucose, lactose, fructose, and glycerol as more ...", this sentence should be rewritten.
We done.
22) "According to [27],", simialr sentence should be rewritten.
We done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the article is interesting and impactful.
However, there are serious issues with the manuscript.
There is text duplication of L152-166 is duplicate 4 times, before L241, which appears to have references properly inserted.
I stopped reading after considering the figure legends and text associated with figures 1 and 2. These are inconsistent and prevent any further, productive reading.
I will only be able to assess the manuscript after these issues are addressed.
Author Response
REFEREE 2- RESPONSE
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the article is interesting and impactful.
Thank you.
However, there are serious issues with the manuscript.
There is text duplication of L152-166 is duplicate 4 times, before L241, which appears to have references properly inserted.
We done.
I stopped reading after considering the figure legends and text associated with figures 1 and 2. These are inconsistent and prevent any further, productive reading.
We done.
I will only be able to assess the manuscript after these issues are addressed.
Yes. I was revised all manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are still few editing errors in this revised paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
