Microbial Communities in Home-Made and Commercial Kefir and Their Hypoglycemic Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

Author Response

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Microbial communities in home-made and commercial Kefir and their antidiabetic properties

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Q 1. It is a careful, well-edited work.

Only two notes. In terms of the amount of industrial products, the effect of home-made fermented milk products is, for example.

 

Answers: Information on effect of home-made kefir over commercial kefir is nit available. In many regions of the world, traditionally home-made kefir is commonly preferred. 

 

Q 2. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that it is also worth talking about what we call kefir, as it traditionally contains yeast and the regulations regarding this are not completely clear in many places.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we included the sentences in Conclusion: regulation on commercial kefir is still not clear in many countries, it needs to be standardised as per the Food Safety and Standards policy of each country.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

2. Running title is not required. 

3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic ? Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

7. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

Author Response

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Reviewer # 2

 

Q 1. Article is not well written. Is it a systematic review or critical review ? Any protocol to write this article is adopted.

 

Answers: The article is critical review, and we followed the protocol for writing the critical review.

 

Q 2. Running title is not required. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we deleted it.

 

Q 3. Is the snake diagram made by authors ? or collected from somewhere ? Reference needed.

 

Answers: Yes, it is made by us. We have included few references in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 4. Biochemical mechanism of antidiabetic activity of kefir is missing.

 

Answers: As suggested by reviewers, we have mentioned the main biochemical mechanism of T2DM and how kefir and its microbes has been shown to alleviate the enzymes involved in T2DM.

 

Q 5. Informations are not critically mentioned.

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we added the critical comments in the conclusion section.

 

Q 6. Conclusion section is not well managed. What is future scope of research related in this topic?

 

Answers: As suggested by the reviewers, we have revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 7. Who will be reader ? What is limitations ? What is present scenario ? 

 

Answers: Readers will be researchers working in the field of fermented dairy foods, food microbiology, students in Food Science and Microbiology, people working in Dairy industry, food industry, doctors, teachers, students and policy makes

 

Q 8. Result of animal study and human study already mentioned in text. Same thing is represented in table. 

 

Answers: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have removed the table as it is repeated with the information written in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript by Birsen Yilmaz and Cols shows a review of kefir and its possible role as a probiotic in the diabetic population. It is well-written and easy to follow; there are minor comments that the author should address.

I would appreciate it if the authors could include a table o figures with nutritional facts, not only mention the low glycemic index.

A native speaker must review the grammar 

In the main text, the authors should improve the following points.

Figure 1 characters are blurry; please improve the quality and foot legend.

The anti-diabetic term is not appropriate for scientific literature. Please change all anti-diabetic properties to a more scientific term, such as hypoglycemic or hypoglycemia properties.

Please use Firmicutes instead of Bacillota and so on

Be sure that all references have the same format example (Ilikkan and Bagdat 2021) is in cursives 

Figure 2 has poor quality is not possible to see any character.

Intake of kefir has been demonstrated to have a great impact in treatment of type 2 diabetes and increases life span in treated rats (Ostadrahimi et al. 2015; Azizi et al. 2021). How? Please describe in a few words the mechanisms or results found. Review the manuscript and explain the studies shortly to avoid incomplete information. 

Please include an abbreviations table, such as CHO, or have a complete name. 

 

In the following paragraph, how do authors conclude that if they did not see changes between groups? Please explain

Bellikci-Koyu et al. (2022) divided 62 individuals into two different groups. The first group (n:31) was given 180 mL/day of probiotic kefir (Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris, Lactococcus lactis subsp. diacetylactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris, Lentilactobacillus kefiri, Kluyveromyces marxianus, Saccharomyces unisporus), while the second group (n:31) consumed 180 mL/day of unfermented milk for 12 weeks. In the end, insulin, Homa-IR, HbA1c, and blood glucose were found to be similar in groups, suggesting that regular consumption of probiotic kefir can provide favorable effects in the management of metabolic syndrome (Bellikci-Koyuetal.2022)

Author Response

Reviewer # 3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Birsen Yilmaz and Cols shows a review of kefir and its possible role as a probiotic in the diabetic population. It is well-written and easy to follow; there are minor comments that the author should address.

I would appreciate it if the authors could include a table o figures with nutritional facts, not only mention the low glycemic index.

A native speaker must review the grammar 

In the main text, the authors should improve the following points.

 

Answer: Many thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments using the red colour font in the manuscript.

 

 

Q 1. Figure 1 characters are blurry; please improve the quality and foot legend.

 

Answer: As suggested by the Reviewer, we improved the quality of the figure and the foot legend.

 

 

Q 2. The anti-diabetic term is not appropriate for scientific literature. Please change all anti-diabetic properties to a more scientific term, such as hypoglycemic or hypoglycemia properties.

 

Answer: Many thanks for your comment. We changed all “anti-diabetic” terms to “anti-hypoglycemic properties” in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 3. Please use Firmicutes instead of Bacillota and so on

 

Answer: As per the latest nomenclature, Firmicutes has been changed to Bacillota, and many authors prefer the latest nomenclature. We would like to keep the word Bacillota instead of Firmicutes.

 

Q 3. Be sure that all references have the same format example (Ilikkan and Bagdat 2021) is in cursives 

 

Answer: Thanks for your comment. We checked all references and used the MDPI style for all.

 

Q 4. Figure 2 has poor quality is not possible to see any character.

 

Answer: We are sorry for that. We provided Figure 2 in good quality.

 

Q 5. Intake of kefir has been demonstrated to have a great impact in treatment of type 2 diabetes and increases life span in treated rats (Ostadrahimi et al. 2015; Azizi et al. 2021). How? Please describe in a few words the mechanisms or results found. Review the manuscript and explain the studies shortly to avoid incomplete information. 

 

 

Answer: You are quite right. The reason we did not mention this here is that we provided detailed mechanisms on page 6 (the second paragraph of the 2.3. Human studies”). We did not want to repeat the same content. So, we added the following part: “Intake of kefir has been demonstrated to have a great impact in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and increases life span in treated rats (Ostadrahimi et al. 2015; Azizi et al. 2021) via the mechanisms have been mentioned in following sections.”

 

Q 5. Please include an abbreviations table, such as CHO, or have a complete name. 

 

Answer: Because one of the other reviewers suggested us to delete the Table, we did not include it in the table. However, we provided the complete term in the text.

 

 

Q 6. In the following paragraph, how do authors conclude that if they did not see changes between groups? Please explain

Bellikci-Koyu et al. (2022) divided 62 individuals into two different groups. The first group (n:31) was given 180 mL/day of probiotic kefir (Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris, Lactococcus lactis subsp. diacetylactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris, Lentilactobacillus kefiri, Kluyveromyces marxianus, Saccharomyces unisporus), while the second group (n:31) consumed 180 mL/day of unfermented milk for 12 weeks. In the end, insulin, Homa-IR, HbA1c, and blood glucose were found to be similar in groups, suggesting that regular consumption of probiotic kefir can provide favorable effects in the management of metabolic syndrome (Bellikci-Koyuetal.2022)

 Answer: As suggested by the Reviewer we added the sentences in revised manuscript……because milk itself contains many bioactive components. It can be concluded that regular consumption …… (page 7).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Kefir is a nutritious fermented milk product, which possess health-promoting bacteria and health-positive properties. Authors in the article investigated the microbial community composition between the home-made and the commercial kefir, and provided referential information for the anti-diabetic properties. Unfortunately, there are some negative aspects in design. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published on the condition the following statement are revised, to ensure proper understanding of the manuscript presented.

 

1. The abstract should be improved as the first part is not well organized. Please highlight the aim in a better manner.

2. “Kefir is consumed in different countries including Russia, Turkey, …… and Brazil” is excessively tedious. A good idea to refine similar sentences in the manuscript.

3.The term of “genes that synthesize vitamins and γ-aminobutyric acid in kefir” do not support the statement on the main thrust of this review. The description of the anti-diabetic properties below also does not address. Please rephrase or delete the segment.

4. The main problem of the paper is the structure of the manuscript. In the settings reported by the authors, this manuscript contains two parts, one is the microbial composition of kefir and the other is the antidiabetic properties of kefir. Unfortunately, the second part of the manuscript is titled “Microbial community structures in home-made and commercial kefir”, but this part also contains the description of the antidiabetic properties. Moreover, the “Future directions and prospective” should also be a separate section. The present manuscript does not have a reasonable distribution of microorganism composition, anti-diabetic properties, and future directions of kefir, which reduces the readability of the article.

5. The chart is not clear. Please provide high pixel images as requested.

6. Check all Latin names and their italics in the manuscript, such as “predominance of Bifidobacterium longum is also reported (Ilıkkan and Bağdat 2021)”.

7. It is precious how did kefir improve diabetic complications based on existing animal studies and human studies. The manuscript contains a detailed summary of animal studies and human studies of kefir in the prevention of diabetes and metabolic syndrome diseases. However, authors repeatedly state that there are only a few studies (paragraph abstract, paragraph 2.1). The statement is neither clear nor supported by the results presented, please rephrase it. Moreover, the description of the human studies is too large in volume and the animal studies are rather small. In general, the characterization and validation of the functions of food products is initially based on animal experiments, and after determining the toxicology, it is applied to human clinical trials. Please check the related studies of kefir on anti-diabetes, and adjust appropriately.

Author Response

Reviewer # 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kefir is a nutritious fermented milk product, which possess health-promoting bacteria and health-positive properties. Authors in the article investigated the microbial community composition between the home-made and the commercial kefir, and provided referential information for the anti-diabetic properties. Unfortunately, there are some negative aspects in design. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published on the condition the following statement are revised, to ensure proper understanding of the manuscript presented.

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for your comments. We edited the manuscript according to your valuable comments using the blue colour font.

Q1. The abstract should be improved as the first part is not well organized. Please highlight the aim in a better manner.

 

Answer: As suggested my the Reviewer, we improved and revised the Abstrcat in the revised manuscript.

 

Q 2. “Kefir is consumed in different countries including Russia, Turkey, …… and Brazil” is excessively tedious. A good idea to refine similar sentences in the manuscript.

 

Answer: As suggested my the Reviewer, we revised accordingly in the revised manuscript..

 

Q 3. The term of “genes that synthesize vitamins and γ-aminobutyric acid in kefir” do not support the statement on the main thrust of this review. The description of the anti-diabetic properties below also does not address. Please rephrase or delete the segment.

 

Answer: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We deleted this part.

 

Q 4. The main problem of the paper is the structure of the manuscript. In the settings reported by the authors, this manuscript contains two parts, one is the microbial composition of kefir and the other is the antidiabetic properties of kefir. Unfortunately, the second part of the manuscript is titled “Microbial community structures in home-made and commercial kefir”, but this part also contains the description of the antidiabetic properties. Moreover, the “Future directions and prospective” should also be a separate section. The present manuscript does not have a reasonable distribution of microorganism composition, anti-diabetic properties, and future directions of kefir, which reduces the readability of the article.

 

Answer: As suggested by the Reviewer, we revised the sub-titles in the revised manuscript. Also, we tried to improve the manuscript. We hope it would be readable after corrections.

 

Q 5. The chart is not clear. Please provide high pixel images as requested.

 

Answer: We provided both figures in good quality.

 

Q 6. Check all Latin names and their italics in the manuscript, such as “predominance of Bifidobacterium longum is also reported (Ilıkkan and Bağdat 2021)”.

 

Answer: As per our knowledge, Bifidobacterium longum is italic. Moreover, we checked the whole text.

 

Q 7. It is precious how did kefir improve diabetic complications based on existing animal studies and human studies. The manuscript contains a detailed summary of animal studies and human studies of kefir in the prevention of diabetes and metabolic syndrome diseases. However, authors repeatedly state that there are only a few studies (paragraph abstract, paragraph 2.1). The statement is neither clear nor supported by the results presented, please rephrase it. Moreover, the description of the human studies is too large in volume and the animal studies are rather small. In general, the characterization and validation of the functions of food products is initially based on animal experiments, and after determining the toxicology, it is applied to human clinical trials. Please check the related studies of kefir on anti-diabetes, and adjust appropriately.

 

Answer: We rephrased the statement “a few studies” as “some studies” in the text. Regarding the volume of the studies, you are quite right. We deleted Table 1 not to repeat the same content as we mention in the text. Also, we tried to cover the whole existing literature as much as possible. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf