Lacticaseibacillus paracasei KC39 Immobilized on Prebiotic Wheat Bran to Manufacture Functional Soft White Cheese

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-        Lines 40 – 42: cereal, legumes, and fruit can also be carrier for probiotics

-        Material and methods: immobilization. Did the authors use delignified wheat bran as in the Terpou’s method [14] and as written at line 124? If so, it should be specified in section 2.1

-        Why were only gastric conditions described in the method section (lines 128-136)? In the results, the authors described oral, gastric and intestinal phases

-        According to section 3.1.1 authors should probably specify at lines 80-81 that survival tests during storage were carried out both on the wet and freeze-dried samples, and both on free and immobilized cells

-        Details on the GC-MS analysis (section 2.9) were not provided

-        The authors should write at what time (t0?) the physico-chemical analyses were performed

-        Authors should add in section 2.3 that each cheese produced was then analyzed bySEM to verify the morphological structure

-        Could the authors provide more details about the texture profile analyses (Lines 117-120)? What is the difference between the hardness cycle 1 and 2, as written in Table 4?

-        Line 301 and 305: for CFL and CFL, is that correct?

-        Some more recent references in the results and discussion section could improve the work

 

The present article is interesting, and the purpose is clearly presented.

However, the reading is not very smooth and some details are omitted

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer one Comments

Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your kind effort for improving the manuscript

• Lines 40 – 42: cereal, legumes, and fruit can also be carrier for probiotics

= reply: It has been modified accordingly

• Material and methods: immobilization. Did the authors use delignified wheat bran as in the Terpou’s method [14] and as written at line 124? If so, it should be specified in section 2.1

= reply: Materials and methods section has been modified and explained accordingly

• Why were only gastric conditions described in the method section (lines 128-136)? In the results, the authors described oral, gastric and intestinal phases

= reply: section 2.7. in materials and methods has been modified accordingly.

• According to section 3.1.1 authors should probably specify at lines 80-81 that survival tests during storage were carried out both on the wet and freeze-dried samples, and both on free and immobilized cells

= reply: The explanation has been inserted accordingly

• Details on the GC-MS analysis (section 2.9) were not provided

= reply: GC-MS analysis has been inserted

• The authors should write at what time (t0?) the physico-chemical analyses were performed

= reply: It has been inserted

• Authors should add in section 2.3 that each cheese produced was then analyzed by SEM to verify the morphological structure

= reply: The scanning electron microscopy of cheese provided in section 2.6

• Could the authors provide more details about the texture profile analyses (Lines 117-120)? What is the difference between the hardness cycle 1 and 2, as written in Table 4?

= reply: More details about the texture analysis have been added to the section 2.5.

It is a parameter for determination hardness of cheese sample, the sample is exposed to two cycles 1 and 2, different cycles meaning the maximum compression under different two forces.

 

• Line 301 and 305: for CFL and CFL, is that correct?

= reply: It has been corrected 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is very interesting, well written and detailed. However, I ask the authors for clarifications on some points: 

1. Table 5 shows the results of the gastrointestinal simulation, and data for the oral, gastric and intestinal phase are shown, but reading the materials and methods it almost seems as if the simulation was conducted exclusively on the gastric phase. I suggest the authors make this more explicit in the materials and methods by also describing the method used for the oral and intestinal phase. 

2. Line 264-267: What was the starting concentration? A 9.01% reduction from... ?

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 Comments

Reviewer 2

The work is very interesting, well written and detailed. However, I ask the authors for clarifications on some points: 

Thank you very much for your kind effort for improving the manuscript

• Table 5 shows the results of the gastrointestinal simulation, and data for the oral, gastric and intestinal phase are shown, but reading the materials and methods it almost seems as if the simulation was conducted exclusively on the gastric phase. I suggest the authors make this more explicit in the materials and methods by also describing the method used for the oral and intestinal phase. 

= reply: It has been inserted

• Line 264-267: What was the starting concentration? A 9.01% reduction from... ?

= reply: The count of bacteria reduced from 9.10 ± 0.22 to 8.28 ± 0.28 log cfu/g= 9.01%

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for answering and improving the article.

Some minor revisions should be done.

Line 122: properties instead of proprties

Line 122-123: characteristics instead of characteristices
Line 155: delete “ to” and rewrite the sentence (subjecting the samples were subjected to)

2.7 section: please, in describing enzymes used, authors should specify the brand and the activity (done for the amylase, but not for pepsine and pancreatin (mg/ml is a concentration)

 

 

Line 275-278 authors should rewrite the unclear sentence

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1 comments (round 2)

First of all, I want to deeply thank the respected reviewer for his kind effort to improve the manuscript

1. Line 122: properties instead of proprties

The word has been corrected accordingly

2. Line 122-123: characteristics instead of characteristices

The word has been corrected accordingly

3. Line 155: delete “ to” and rewrite the sentence (subjecting the samples were subjected to)

The sentence has been re-written accordingly

4. 2.7 section: please, in describing enzymes used, authors should specify the brand and the activity (done for the amylase, but not for pepsine and pancreatin (mg/ml is a concentration)

The brand and activity of all used enzymes have been added, the concentration of enzymes have been corrected as well to be (U/ ml instead of mg/ml)

5. Line 275-278 authors should rewrite the unclear sentence

The sentence has been reformatted and corrected  accordingly

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf