Gluten-Free Brewing: Issues and Perspectives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well written manuscript on gluten-free brewing. I did not see any problem in the manuscript.
only one thing
l254 in order to activate alpha amylase II-4 isoform reference needed
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed a detailed review of the existing strategies to produce gluten-free beers
-) In my opinion, it is always better, in case of a review paper, to find some references of the authors in order to understand how authoritative is the review. At least in the introductory parts, I suggest you to cite a few references from your team demonstrating that you have considerable expertise in the field.
-) Too often you started a new sub-paragraph (e.g. in the section 2., lines: 77, 86, 101, 106, 111). In this way, the writing appears fragmentary. Please revise the whole manuscript avoiding this style.
-) Punctual revisions up to the section 4 (minor points) underlined the need a further critical reading of the manuscript. Please also revise the rest of the manuscript. I would be please do revise the resting parts in the next round of revisions.
Line 17: This review aims to provide
Line 22: A survey on 185 GF-producing breweries (both industrial and craft)
Line 29: Beer is one of the most ancient and consumed beverages worldwide (https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5710/5/3/51/htm).
Line 31: each gives its indications
Line 34: ingredient for beer only later [1], but specific starter cultures are included in the product specification of traditional beers such as ‘Münchener Bier’ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0172219012000555).
Line 41: “increased in the last years”…you already talk of growth in the recent years…please eliminate and rewrite
Line 43: organic ingredients and free from GMO, since
Line 44: avoiding undesired chemicals
Line 46: aspect, artisanal products, and by a
Line 47: gluten-free (GF) beers
Line 48: but also drank by consumer
Line 49: It is just
Line 49: Common beer is not
Line 55: Mucosal negative changes
Line 56: did not show
Line 56: Thus, the value
Line 64: for example, Stout
Line 70: has different sensory attributes and a higher cost than conventional beer (ref needed). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092422441400003X ?
Line 83: Also,
Line 93: gastroesophageal reflux
Line 98: anti-tissue
Line 107: for example, vitamin
Line 108: These macro- and micro-nutrients
Line 109: , GF cereals
Line 117: is essential to guarantee
Line 123: However, this technique
Line 127: In these cases,
Line 131: expensive equipment and expertise
Line 136: Also, Tanner
Line 137: near-zero gluten
Line 139: Besides, DNA-based
Line 142: real-time PCR
Line 143: Given the above
Line 145: the matrix
Line 148: it does not contain
Line 149: example, triticale
Line 150: to remain under the level
Line 163: GF products trade
Line 167: portfolio. Nevertheless, higher
Line 170: as a case study
Line 179: “Most of the 46 Italian GF beers reviewed on web are craft.”…what about this survey…are you anticipating the survey reported at line 187? Please clarify…
Line 180: on the web are
Line 170-183: this long part on the Italian situation has to be adequately introduced/justified…please modify
Line 187: how did you select this list of 185 breweries? Randomly, with given criteria…please specify…
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
-) Please, where appropriate in the manuscript, discuss also the following articles:
https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/4/4/103
https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/24/8/1568/htm (especially the final part of the second section)
Line 199: in the final beer
Line 220: labelled
Line 222: <20 ppm, too (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3271/4/4/21/htm).
Line 222: This cereal has a lower
Line 227: Nevertheless, also
Line 229: unsaturated fatty
Line 242: in the world
Line 243: Poaceae family
Line 245: process,
Line 257: unsaturated
Line 264: flat sensory characteristics (ref needed).
Line 268: in the brewing
Line 269: Besides, the prize of
Line 284: as a source
Line 287: Poaceae
Line 304: Africa, both as malted sorghum and as adjunct (https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/5/1203, https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5710/3/3/43).
Line 306: literature (ref needed)
Line 310: a high
Line 311: a relevant content
Line 313: the brewing
Line 330: Usually,
Line 331: it is difficulty in managing.
Line 338: a positive
Line 344: Brettanomyces
Line 346: than? Please verify the meaning
Line 346: more similar than barley (ref needed). Please verify that what reported in the reference coincides with what you reported in the sentence.
Line 349: Besides, millet
Line 354: to compensate for this
Line 385: in the brewing
Line 394: a possible
Line 403: a high
Line 405: in the final product
Lines 405-6: “Brewing characteristics of amaranth are not yet well known” it seems a repetition of what you reported at line
Line 412: as a substitute
Line 420: of the final
Line 423: from a plurality
Line 429: of the final
Line 453: Nevertheless, Taylor
Line 456: A. oryzae
Line 456: in the food
Line 461: Also, lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
Line 463: use in brewing [112]. However, tailored solutions can be transferred from the sourdough technology (https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/5/3/65/htm), as already done for other cereal-based products such as pasta (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00094/full). PEP from Sphaerobacter
Line 469: in the food industry
Line 474: in Europe, the
Line 476: However, they
Line 481: the extraction of the following enzyme
Line 484: could also be
Line 487: for example,
-) among the different strategies you propose, could be interesting introduce the fact that some are promising for Celiac Disease other for Gluten sensitivity, as it is the case (probably) of the precipitation treatment. Probably the best place for this part could be the introduction of section 5. (lines 196-203).
Line 500: a great
Line 503: filtration, but,
Line 519: of the final beer
Line 545: nevertheless, it allows
Line 547: evaluation is challenging.
Line 554: yoghurt-like flavour
Line 556: off-flavours
Line 558: generally has
Line 561: unsaturated
Line 564: relatively low
Line 584: the conventional one
Line 587: for example,
Lines 587-88: I suggest you to move this part on the microorganisms to the next section
Line 589: the conventional product.
Lines 595-96: “because of a low amount of important aroma compounds produced [129]. They are bitter, probably because of bitter-tasting molecules,”…unclear…please rewrite…
Line 598: obtained a lower
Line 610: of the main disadvantages
Line 615: The other
Line 619: but unsuitable foam stability (ref needed).
Line 621: the sample
Line 623: the sample
Line 628: In Table 4,
Line 628: sensory issues. The high number of variables to be monitored suggest the importance of a tailored analytical approach in order to screen diverse experimental modalities (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28518086,https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996918304241).
Line 631: principal strengths and weaknesses
-) If I well understand, Table 4 includes strengths and weaknesses not only related to sensory properties. Giving the general nature of the table, I suggest you to move it in the section. In effect it can be of help in concluding and in shaping future perspectives.
Line 635: the final beer
Line 636: is crucial for an efficient
Line 644: repitching
Line 656-59: Are you sure? Please provide references
Line 664: them to identify
Line 679: challenge…challenge…
-) ‘Conclusions and future trends’ appeared confused. This is a crucial part of your work. Please summarize and clarify as much as possible
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the manuscript according to my suggestion.