Development of Non-Dairy Synbiotic Fruit Beverage Using Adansonia digatata (baobab) Fruit Pulp as Prebiotic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
The topic of the manuscript is part of the research on extending the range of synbiotic foods based on local ingredients with beneficial properties for human health. You isolated, identified and characterized lactic acid bacteria obtained from milk and selected L. fermentum with potentially probiotic properties for further research. Then you composed drinks based on baobab pulp and apple juice or water or milk, all were fermented by a probiotic strain and you also characterized the nutrients of the baobab fruit pulp and its prebiotic properties. You found that the obtained fermented products meet the requirements of functional products. I think that experiment was planned and performed correctly. The methods need some corrections. The results are generally well presented, but Tables 6 and 7 are very small, so I suggest to combine them. The tables 8 and 9 presenting proximate composition of baobab fruit pulp and beverage also should be combined. Manuscript is rather well-written, but English language should be improved in some places.
In summary, I recommend this manuscript for publication in Fermentation, but after making all corrections suggested in reviewed version of manuscript (added here) .
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Most of the corrections have been effected in the manuscript
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors,
I have gone through your manuscript and minor revision will be required. Attached please find my comments/suggestions
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Corrections have been effected.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Reviewer comments and suggestions
Manuscript ID: fermentation-1930880
With this manuscript, the authors studied and evaluated the prebiotic potential of baobab fruit and the potential of using fermented baobab-based beverages as functional foods.
These novel and natural products are very important because they represent a challenge to lactose-intolerant individuals and vegetarians. This topic is of interest and studies with this objective are very important
In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication in Fermentation, after revision, because the importance and the innovation of the paper is not totally clearly demonstrated.
Some concrete comments would be as follows:
-The abstract must clearly state the originality of this work and the main objective of this study.
-The authors must clarify the sentence that appears in the abstract: “Three potential non-dairy synbiotic functional beverages using baobab fruit pulp fermented with potential probiotic Limosilactobacillus fermentum and mixed with milk, water and apple juice separately were produced”.
-The introduction should also address that the seeds and pulp of baobab contain certain antinutrients, especially phytates, tannins, etc. which could interfere with and reduce the absorption of nutrients.
-The “Phytochemical Screening of Baobab Fruit Pulp” must be better explained.
-The authors must explain equation 1 of “Determination of Fatty Acid Content of Baobab Fruit Pulp”.
-How did the authors evaluate the shelf life of the synbiotic beverages? What were the parameters?
-Table 1 – should be changed, as it is not clear.
-Why did the authors use different units for Phytochemical Analysis (mg) and Fatty acid Composition (%)?
-How did the authors explain the evolution of pH and acidity of the beverages?
-In what way is this paper differentiated from the others when they approach this type of methodologies?
-The discussion part needs amendments, and the authors must ensure that all references are the most recent and relevant to the arguments in the paper.
-The validation of the conclusions must be strongly emphasized with more studies and with a broader discussion around this issue because the potential of these baobab-based functional foods, in terms of prebiotic /probiotic potential, is a fundamental issue.
Final comments and considerations: The paper deserve to be published at Fermentation after the suggestions and corrections listed above are amended.
Author Response
Corections have been effected
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
thank you for corrections, I accept them. You should correct AW explanations for figures 8,9,10,11.
Author Response
The corrections have been effected.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors replied to my comments and they have provided a new and improved version of the paper.
Final comments and considerations: In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication in Fermentation.
Author Response
The reviewer's comment is acknowledged.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study by Popoola et al. describes the production and characterization of a baobab fruit juice including a probiotic strain. The work includes a high amount of experimental work. Results presented are interesting for readers in probiotics and prebiotics, but the fermentation of the product is not discussed in the text, as the journal is about “fermentations”. Methodologies are not explained with enough detail to understand the work that was performed. Tables and figures are very difficult to understand, as the captions do not explain enough their content. The discussion is too superficial and do not support scientific evidence. Language of the manuscript should be revised and improved.
Specific comments
The abstract is not well structured. It is difficult to understand the aim, methodologies applied and results.
Introduction must be re-written. It contains too many definitions. It should be more focused in the state of the art of symbiotic that include the products that will be explored in the work.
Page 2 - Please support this sentence with relevant scientific evidence: ”Also, non-dairy products due to their physical structures establish a conducive environment for probiotics by limiting the adverse environmental conditions of the gastrointestinal tract.”
When citing a work directly in the text, e.g. in “The method of [16] was…” ,“as described by [28]…” it is better to include the name of the author (following the rules of the journal). E.g. The method by Misganaw et. al was…
In the methodology, please include the name of the method or a brief explanation on the methods used instead of always reporting to other works. Otherwise the reader cannot understand the work done unless reading all the citations in the text. Few examples of many in the text: “…carbohydrate content using the method of [27].” ; “baobab pulp were determined according to [30]…” The method of [31] was employed.” “The prebiotic potential of the fruit pulp and beverages were determined using the method of [34]”
3.1. Occurrence of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Milk Samples – Please explain in the text how strains were differentiated according to obtained results.
Please re-organize table 1. It is not possible to understand the meaning of sucrose, glucose, etc.
Fig II, III, etc. – Figure caption should not include a discussion on the results as “All isolates survived at pH of 2.5 but L. fermentum were the most resilient even after 3 h”. On the other hand, the caption should better explain the image, e.g. what is 1h and 3 h referred?
Table captions should also better describe the tables. E.g. what is RF and RT in Tables XII
Line 324 – Why is the text written in a different letter type?
Some results miss statistics, e.g. sodium, iron, ash…
Why the composition of baobab fruit (Table VIII) is higher than 100% when each content summed?
How the author determined the amount of FOS and inulin? What exactly means 0.77% of FOS?
Please include a reference in: “ The morphological and biochemical characteristics of the LAB iso[1]lates conform to that of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology.”
“Gastric juice is acidic and secreted in the small intestine.” Gastric juice is secreted in the stomach in pH around 3. Probiotics should resist to the acidity of stomach, not to the small intestine environment.
When discussing the prebiotic content in baobab fruit, the author should include references of other studies which may include baobab or other fruits for comparison of the values. Is the amount of prebiotics determined enough to produce a prebiotic functionality to the consumer when drinking the juice prepared?
“increased production of lactic acid by L. fermentum since fermentation commenced over the storage period” The amount of lactic acid in the juice was determined in the study?
“The capacity of probiotics to ferment prebiotics is significant because some carbo[1]hydrates that escape metabolism and adsorption in the small intestine have influence on the gut microbiota.” This sentence has no scientific meaning.
“In this study, the selected LAB were able to degrade the fructooligosaccharides and inulin content of the fruit beverages after a period of three weeks with the production of lactate.” FOS and inulin are not only metabolized by probiotics into SCFA, but also hydrolyzed under acidic conditions, which may be the cause of its lower amount after 3 weeks. Moreover, if the prebiotic content decreases, can the juice still be considered a symbiotic?
Author Response
The abstract is not well structured. It is difficult to understand the aim, methodologies applied and results.
The abstract has been re-structured.
Introduction must be re-written. It contains too many definitions. It should be more focused in the state of the art of symbiotic that include the products that will be explored in the work.
Definitions have been removed.
Page 2 - Please support this sentence with relevant scientific evidence: ”Also, non-dairy products due to their physical structures establish a conducive environment for probiotics by limiting the adverse environmental conditions of the gastrointestinal tract.”
A relevant scientific reference (61) has been included to support this statement.
When citing a work directly in the text, e.g. in “The method of [16] was…” ,“as described by [28]…” it is better to include the name of the author (following the rules of the journal). E.g. The method by Misganaw et. al was…
The references in the method section have been re-written according to the Journal's standard and Reviewer's comment.
In the methodology, please include the name of the method or a brief explanation on the methods used instead of always reporting to other works. Otherwise the reader cannot understand the work done unless reading all the citations in the text. Few examples of many in the text: “…carbohydrate content using the method of [27].” ; “baobab pulp were determined according to [30]…” The method of [31] was employed.” “The prebiotic potential of the fruit pulp and beverages were determined using the method of [34]”
This has been addressed.
3.1. Occurrence of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Milk Samples – Please explain in the text how strains were differentiated according to obtained results.
Carbohydrate fermentation tests were used in differentiating between the species and using the reference standard (Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology).
Please re-organize table 1. It is not possible to understand the meaning of sucrose, glucose, etc.
The table has been re-organized.
Fig II, III, etc. – Figure caption should not include a discussion on the results as “All isolates survived at pH of 2.5 but L. fermentum were the most resilient even after 3 h”. On the other hand, the caption should better explain the image, e.g. what is 1h and 3 h referred?
Captions in figures have been removed and replaced with titles. 1h and 3h which means 1 hour and 3 hours respectively has been defined in the text.
Table captions should also better describe the tables. E.g. what is RF and RT in Tables XII
This has been addressed.
Line 324 – Why is the text written in a different letter type?
This line had no text written in a different font thus correction wasn't made.
Some results miss statistics, e.g. sodium, iron, ash…
All statistical results have been included.
Why the composition of baobab fruit (Table VIII) is higher than 100% when each content summed?
This test was carried out again and the results obtained were input which now sums up to 100%.
How the author determined the amount of FOS and inulin? What exactly means 0.77% of FOS?
The method used has been included alongside the reference.
Please include a reference in: “ The morphological and biochemical characteristics of the LAB iso[1]lates conform to that of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology.”
Corrected.
“Gastric juice is acidic and secreted in the small intestine.” Gastric juice is secreted in the stomach in pH around 3. Probiotics should resist to the acidity of stomach, not to the small intestine environment.
Corrected.
When discussing the prebiotic content in baobab fruit, the author should include references of other studies which may include baobab or other fruits for comparison of the values. Is the amount of prebiotics determined enough to produce a prebiotic functionality to the consumer when drinking the juice prepared?
Another reference has been included which investigated apple powder and others. Yes, the amount of prebiotics present in the beverages is sufficient to make the drink functional and this was supported with the reference given.
“increased production of lactic acid by L. fermentum since fermentation commenced over the storage period” The amount of lactic acid in the juice was determined in the study?
Yes, the amount of lactate was determined in Table 12.
“The capacity of probiotics to ferment prebiotics is significant because some carbo[1]hydrates that escape metabolism and adsorption in the small intestine have influence on the gut microbiota.” This sentence has no scientific meaning.
This sentence has been re-casted to make meaning.
“In this study, the selected LAB were able to degrade the fructooligosaccharides and inulin content of the fruit beverages after a period of three weeks with the production of lactate.” FOS and inulin are not only metabolized by probiotics into SCFA, but also hydrolyzed under acidic conditions, which may be the cause of its lower amount after 3 weeks. Moreover, if the prebiotic content decreases, can the juice still be considered a symbiotic?
A decrease in prebiotic content without total elimination does not negate its use as a synbiotic. A reference was provided were with 0% inulin content in the samples examined in the reference given, the LAB isolates were growing merely after 1 hour.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present work is interesting, however, in present way not really well presented. Several parts of the work need to be presented better, some additional test to be performed. In general writing is very poor and need serious corrections. Maybe authors can look for help from more experience colleague that will help them to better plan, structure and presented present work.
The Manuscript still need to be formatted to the journal commended style.
Ln12: Word probiotics do not need to be in bold.
Sentence on Ln12-14 need to be corrected. It is confusing in present form.
In the abstract you have mentioned that 3 potential products were evaluated - milk, based, water based and apple juice based, but in same time baobab fruit is objective of this study?! Please, correct and rewrite entire abstract with focus on obtained results.
Please, do not use slang in the preparation of the manuscript. First sentence of the introduction is very confusing. Authors need to express themself in better way.
On second sentence as well, authors need to present better. More than mentioned mechanisms are responsible for the dysbiosis in the human and other animals GIT.
Ln68: according to recent changes, as prebiotics can be applied not only carbohydrates, but other non-digestive matrices that can be metabolised by the probiotics. Please, correct the mentioned section and provide reference.
Please, draw difference between prebiotics and delivery systems. This are two different subjects.
Title is not really representing content of the paper.
Please, for all material and equipment suppliers provide address according to the instructions for authors, including Name of the company, city, state (in case of federal countries) in abbreviated form, and country. Please, use headquarter of the company and not distributors address.
In order to be applied as probiotics, at least 16s rRNA partial gene sequencing needs to be performed and results provided.
Section under 2.3. needs references.
Ln148; you have introduced already abbreviation for lactic acid bacteria, please, use it.
Ln149: Why only pH 2.5 and 3.0 were evaluated?
Ln169: Centrifugation need to be as g force, not rpm. Supernatant was filtered via what type/size filter? Please, provide strain numbers and collections for applied test organisms.
Ln181: Why 48h culture? For LAB this is very old, normally is 18-24h cultures, from stationary phase.
Ln189: The protocol by [21] was used. Correct o: The protocol by UK Standards for Microbiology Investigation Protocol [21] was used
Gelatinase test needs to be explain better. There is additional step at cold at the end that needs to be added.
Ln205: Please, what controls were applied. Be more precise.
Ln211: The methods need to be presented with more details.
Ln237-247: Needs to be presented with more details.
Ln273: Italics for L. fermentum.
Since 2020 there is change of name of Lactobacillus fermentum. Please, be more updated.
Some of the figures and tables can be easier presented as text.
Please, be sure that you have different abbreviations for Lactobacillus and Listeria, both cannot be abbreviated as L.
Figures and tables need to be presented with Arabian numbers, not Romans.
figures are confusing and difficult to follow them.
Table II (2). Please, provide strain numbers and collection origin. Drawing conclusion about antimicrobial potential based only on 5 test organisms is very preliminary.
Discussion is very basic.
References are not into the journal style.
Author Response
The Manuscript still need to be formatted to the journal commended style.
This has been addressed.
Ln12: Word probiotics do not need to be in bold.
Corrected in the Abstract.
Sentence on Ln12-14 need to be corrected. It is confusing in present form.
Corrected.
In the abstract you have mentioned that 3 potential products were evaluated - milk, based, water based and apple juice based, but in same time baobab fruit is objective of this study?! Please, correct and rewrite entire abstract with focus on obtained results.
The prebiotic potential of baobab was determined with the ultimate aim of using it to produce a functional beverage. This correction was not taken.
Please, do not use slang in the preparation of the manuscript. First sentence of the introduction is very confusing. Authors need to express themself in better way.
The sentence has been re-cast.
On second sentence as well, authors need to present better. More than mentioned mechanisms are responsible for the dysbiosis in the human and other animals GIT.
Though this study is not a review paper thus, an exhaustive list of the causes of gut dysbiosis can not be given. Moreover, the core subject of the study isn't gut dysbiosis. However, a few others were included.
Ln68: according to recent changes, as prebiotics can be applied not only carbohydrates, but other non-digestive matrices that can be metabolised by the probiotics. Please, correct the mentioned section and provide reference.
Another definition has been provided to reflect the update with a suitable reference provided.
Please, draw difference between prebiotics and delivery systems. This are two different subjects.
This was not addressed as this was not the objective of this study.
Title is not really representing content of the paper.
Can suggestions of an appropriate title be given? The authors think the title is adequate in its current form.
Please, for all material and equipment suppliers provide address according to the instructions for authors, including Name of the company, city, state (in case of federal countries) in abbreviated form, and country. Please, use headquarter of the company and not distributors address.
This has been addressed.
In order to be applied as probiotics, at least 16s rRNA partial gene sequencing needs to be performed and results provided.
For this study, gene sequencing was not carried out. In further studies, this can be carried out.
Section under 2.3. needs references.
Addressed.
Ln148; you have introduced already abbreviation for lactic acid bacteria, please, use it.
Corrected.
Ln149: Why only pH 2.5 and 3.0 were evaluated?
The scope of this study was to examine the effect of LAB in extremely acidic pH since that mimics the acidity of the stomach.
Ln169: Centrifugation need to be as g force, not rpm. Supernatant was filtered via what type/size filter? Please, provide strain numbers and collections for applied test organisms.
RPM can also be used. Whatman no. 1 filter paper was employed for filtration. Strain numbers are not available for the test organisms used however, they are reference strains collected from a renowned hospital.
Ln181: Why 48h culture? For LAB this is very old, normally is 18-24h cultures, from stationary phase.
This has been corrected.
Ln189: The protocol by [21] was used. Correct o: The protocol by UK Standards for Microbiology Investigation Protocol [21] was used
Corrected.
Gelatinase test needs to be explain better. There is additional step at cold at the end that needs to be added.
Not sure what this means. Can you be explicit?
Ln205: Please, what controls were applied. Be more precise.
Streptococcus species was used.
Ln211: The methods need to be presented with more details.
Addressed.
Ln237-247: Needs to be presented with more details.
The absorbance values for different fatty acids are presented in these lines.
Ln273: Italics for L. fermentum.
Corrected.
Since 2020 there is change of name of Lactobacillus fermentum. Please, be more updated.
The current nomenclature was indicated through the abstract in our initial submission. We are updated about the current nomenclature. It was an oversight but it has been corrected.
Some of the figures and tables can be easier presented as text.
We prefer the format of the result presentation used.
Please, be sure that you have different abbreviations for Lactobacillus and Listeria, both cannot be abbreviated as L.
Listeria is written in full everywhere it appeared in the article. That already differentiates the organisms.
Figures and tables need to be presented with Arabian numbers, not Romans.
Corrected.
figures are confusing and difficult to follow them.
Table II (2). Please, provide strain numbers and collection origin. Drawing conclusion about antimicrobial potential based only on 5 test organisms is very preliminary.
The core of this study is not on the antimicrobial activity of the organisms. This test was carried out to have a semblance of the likely antagonistic activity the tested LAB could have against these pathogens.
Discussion is very basic.
Not sure what this means!
References are not into the journal style.
Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
fermentation-1496073-peer-review-v1
Authors have corrected extensively the present work, however, still need additional corrections Maybe authors can look for help from more experience colleague that will help them to better plan, structure and presented present work.
The Manuscript still need to be formatted to the journal commended style.
Authors have bio-molecular identification of the isolated strains? Without this step, paper cannot be accepted.
Centrifugation needs to be as xg, not rpm. See Ln 195, etc.
Ln209: correct to "MA, USA"
Ln241-244: Need to be corrected. Adding the UK standard at the end sit a bit artificial.
Ln265: Correct to "MA, USA".
Ln270: Pay attention on the journal format.
Ln134: 2. Material and methods
Ln368: 3. Results
Ln321: Correct to: OSA, UK
Ln327-363: Please, respect journal style recommendation.
Ln333: MA, USA.
If you have introduced the company supplier or material or equipment, in first occasion you need to provide full address. In second occasion, you need to provide only name of the company. Please, correct entire manuscript regarding to this point. There are several occasions that this need to be corrected.
Ln134: 2. Material and methods
Ln368: 3. Results
Figure 1 is not needed.
Table 1 can be supplementary material
Figure 2-7: Please provide strain numbers on the figure after name of the species.
Quality of Figure can be increased. X and Y axes are missing
in Table 2 provide strain numbers for the test organisms and LAB
Avoid use of one sentence paragraphs.
Table 3 is not needed. Can be stated in the text that all are negative
Table 6 is not needed. Information can be presented as part of the text.
Table 4,5,7,8 can be combined as one table
Table 10 is not needed, can be presented as part of the text.
Figure 11, 12 and 13 can be combined.
Correct to 4. Discussion
Some of the references are still not in the journal style. Specially citations from the books.
Author Response
Authors have corrected extensively the present work, however, still need additional corrections Maybe authors can look for help from more experience colleague that will help them to better plan, structure and presented present work.
Three Senior Professors authored this article and have been published in Internationally recognized Journals. Presenting the results from our study is not a problem.
The Manuscript still need to be formatted to the journal commended style.
The manuscript has been prepared following the Author’s guideline of the Journal. Please be specific.
Authors have bio-molecular identification of the isolated strains? Without this step, paper cannot be accepted.
In this study, molecular characterization was not carried out. For further studies, that will be done. However, to identify the LAB isolates, morphological, biochemical, and sugar fermentation tests, which are key, were used in identifying the organisms.
Centrifugation needs to be as xg, not rpm. See Ln 195, etc.
xg has been calculated and inserted instead of rpm.
Ln209: correct to "MA, USA"
Corrected.
Ln241-244: Need to be corrected. Adding the UK standard at the end sit a bit artificial.
Corrected.
Ln265: Correct to "MA, USA".
Corrected.
Ln270: Pay attention on the journal format.
The manuscript has been prepared following the Author’s guideline of the Journal.
Ln134: 2. Material and methods
The correct way to write this is Materials and Methods and not Material and methods. We stick to how we have written it in the manuscript. However the numbering was changed from 1. to 2.
Ln368: 3. Results
Numbering corrected from 3.0 to 3.
Ln321: Correct to: OSA, UK
This is the first time the equipment was mentioned and according to the Journal guidelines, the full address should be provided and that was what was presented.
Ln327-363: Please, respect journal style recommendation.
Unclear, please be specific as we could not identify what the issue was with the highlighted lines.
Ln333: MA, USA.
If you have introduced the company supplier or material or equipment, in first occasion you need to provide full address. In second occasion, you need to provide only name of the company. Please, correct entire manuscript regarding to this point. There are several occasions that this need to be corrected.
Only Oxoid Limited and Thermo Fisher was repeated and it has been corrected.
Ln134: 2. Material and methods
Repeated comment!
Ln368: 3. Results
Repeated comment!
Figure 1 is not needed.
This result is important as it shows the distribution of the LAB isolates in the milk sample. We chose not to remove this result.
Table 1 can be supplementary material
Table 1 presents the characteristics used in identifying the isolates in comparison to Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. It is not supplementary material. It should remain as a main part of the results.
Figure 2-7: Please provide strain numbers on the figure after name of the species.
Strain numbers (accession numbers) can only be provided if molecular identification was carried out. This is an in-vitro study; when further studies that entail in-vivo analysis are carried out, as we progress on the study, we will incorporate molecular characterization. The aim of this work was to determine first, the potential of Baobab as a prebiotic.
Quality of Figure can be increased. X and Y axes are missing
The resolution of all the Figures has been improved. X and Y axes are not missing in any of the Figures.
in Table 2 provide strain numbers for the test organisms and LAB
Strain numbers (accession numbers) can only be provided if molecular identification was carried out. In the previous response to the reviewers, We had mentioned the test organisms were clinical isolates collected from culture centers in a reputable hospital in Nigeria.
Avoid use of one sentence paragraphs.
Noted.
Table 3 is not needed. Can be stated in the text that all are negative
Effected.
Table 6 is not needed. Information can be presented as part of the text.
We chose to present the Table as it is. It informs about the nutritional composition of the produced synbiotic beverages and it should be vivid.
Table 4,5,7,8 can be combined as one table
These tables cannot be merged as one. The results bear different units of measurement.
Table 10 is not needed, can be presented as part of the text.
Corrected.
Figure 11, 12 and 13 can be combined.
It has been merged.
Correct to 4. Discussion
Corrected.
Some of the references are still not in the journal style. Specially citations from the books.
Checked and corrected.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
According to the recommendations of several agencies and scientific journals, probiotic can be applied only if appropriate identification can be provided. We are living in 2021, and appropriate bio-molecular at least 16S rRNA needs to be provided.
In 2021 working with microbial culture with not appropriate bio-molecular identification is equal to try to build a house without fundaments. It is not rally question of payment for the sequencing, since authors have shown that can spend a much more of several test part of the present paper.
Strain number is a "face" of the specific microbial culture, and this unique strain number is the specific characteristic of the bacterial culture. Accession number is not strain number. Any strain, part of the culture collection has his strain number. Any laboratory, working with bacterial cultures has his own way to organise and keep identity of their strains. Asking for s strain number, this can be their own collections way of naming different strains.
“Ln134: 2. Material and methods
The correct way to write this is Materials and Methods and not Material and methods. We stick to how we have written it in the manuscript. However, the numbering was changed from 1. to 2.”
Thank you for changing the number to “2”. This was what I was asking.
“Ln321: Correct to: OSA, UK
This is the first time the equipment was mentioned and according to the Journal guidelines, the full address should be provided and that was what was presented.”
If you have pay attention, I was asking you to add “,” between OSA and UK. Still there is not “,”.
“Ln327-363: Please, respect journal style recommendation.
Unclear, please be specific as we could not identify what the issue was with the highlighted lines.”
Have authors not see that text need to follow the left margins as rest of the text?
Table 2: you have mentioned some pathogens, but without their strain number, that is passport for the identity and ownership of that strain it is questionable if these strains are really appropriate identified as well. This is if you can provide strain number, then identity of specific strain can be track back to original and be trustable.
