Looking inside Mexican Traditional Food as Sources of Synbiotics for Developing Novel Functional Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is very informative. However, I would like to suggest the authors to include the mechanism of each health beneficial effects. The authors may add 1-2 figures and tables for better understanding the review paper.

The authors should highlight the differences between the Mexican fermented foods and fermented foods of other region. Similar kind of raw substrates and microorganisms are involved in the mentioned fermented foods. What do make the Mexican fermented foods unique compared to the other fermented foods.

Some of the queries have been highlighted in the attached pdf file. You may see the comments by opening it in Adobe reader.

There are many grammatical errors and need a correction.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1 comments

Point 1: The review is very informative. However, I would like to suggest the authors to include the mechanism of each health beneficial effects. The authors may add 1-2 figures and tables for better understanding the review paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for reading and reviewing our article. We have pointed out the mechanisms by adding subtle changes to the text. Although it is difficult to summarize the effects of all the actives in the food in the images, as suggested, we have created a new set of more explanatory images to help the reader to better understand the positive health effects of each food matrix in an updated way, focusing on the effects of the papers included in this review. In addition, different tables were created to summarize the general effect of each prebiotic, probiotic or symbiotic.

Point 2: The authors should highlight the differences between the Mexican fermented foods and fermented foods of other region. Similar kind of raw substrates and microorganisms are involved in the mentioned fermented foods. What do make the Mexican fermented foods unique compared to the other fermented foods.

Response 2: The purpose of the review, as we explain in the abstract, is just to “detail the functional properties of maize, agave, nopal and frijol, as well as analyze the functional food innovation and development opportunities for these food matrices which might be an important precedent for future basic and applied research”. We know that other food matrices around the world, like wheat, rice, milk and several other have been yet analyzed and highlighted as rich in prebiotics, that can also be considered a probiotic source and we here chose the traditional Mexican food elements as an opportunity area because there are no other studies summarizing the effects of these 4 elements. To clarify this, we modify a paragraph in the introduction (Lines 75-84).

Point 3: Some of the queries have been highlighted in the attached pdf file. You may see the comments by opening it in Adobe reader.

Response 3: Thank you very much. This way of reviewing helped us through the identification of the parts, and we already modify every suggestion you made (Suggestions of lines 52, 99, 116, 121, 238, 446 in the previous manuscript).

Point 4: There are many grammatical errors and need a correction.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing them out, we have already changed them.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research article titled “Looking inside Mexican Traditional Food as Sources of Synbiotics for Developing Novel Functional Products” is well-written and well-presented. The manuscript aims to evaluate the functional properties of maize, agave, nopal, and frijol, traditional from the Mexican diet, and the trends and prospects in biofunctional food development. This review analyses the prebiotics and probiotics related to these vegetables and their synbiotic effects.

While overall is an interesting and well-written review, the manuscript needs to be improved for publication.

- INTRODUCTION. The introduction needs to include more information about prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics, particularly their role in improving health.

Line 74: replace “self-life” for “shelf-life”.  

Lines 75 to 77: The sentence “After the isolation, and characterization of probiotics, …” is somewhat confusing and should be rewritten to improve clarity.

- METHODS: Methodology employed to extract the articles cited in the review should be included. Also, the criteria used to evaluate the strength of the available evidence could be considered.

- Studies regarding prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics derived from or associated with the vegetables under study should be presented through a table that summarizes most of the information.

- Current nomenclature should be used to name lactic acid bacteria species (e.g., Lactiplantibacillus plantarum instead of Lactobacillus plantarum).

- Lines 139 to 142: Revise the sentence “Only Weissella cibaria and Leuconostoc citreum displayed antagonistic activity towards foodborne pathogens, short-chain fatty acids production and adhesion to HT-29 human colon cell line [35,36]”. It is confusing in regard to the previous sentence.

- Line 149: replace “which is” for “which are”.  

- Lines 196 to 197: Rephrase the sentence “Agavins are known to reverse the metabolic disorders including microbiota changes”.

- Lines 292 to 293: revise the grammar in the sentence “They assessed an increase on Bifidobacteria, Bacteroides and Enterobacteria and on the metabolic level an hypocholesterolemic effect”.

- Authors should include in the nopal review other studies concerning the lactic acid fermentation of cactus pear or cladodes, in particular using autochthonous LAB (e.g., DOI: 10.1016/J.LWT.2016.09.026; DOI: 10.1016/J.LWT.2017.05.058; DOI: 10.1039/C8FO01591K; DOI: 10.1016/J.FM.2016.06.009; DOI: 10.1039/C8FO01591K; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152575).

- In some cases, the analyzed examples of synbiotics (e.g., in Nopal) do not meet the ISAPP definition (a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host) because beneficial effects on health were not demonstrated or they were not mentioned in the manuscript. They should be treated as potential synbiotics or refer to examples that fit the definition.

- Lines 402 to 404: Check the grammar of the sentence.

- Discussion section should be improved emphasizing future trends and prospects. In the actual form is very similar to the previous sections.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 comments

Point 1: The research article titled “Looking inside Mexican Traditional Food as Sources of Synbiotics for Developing Novel Functional Products” is well-written and well-presented. The manuscript aims to evaluate the functional properties of maize, agave, nopal, and frijol, traditional from the Mexican diet, and the trends and prospects in biofunctional food development. This review analyses the prebiotics and probiotics related to these vegetables and their synbiotic effects. While overall is an interesting and well-written review, the manuscript needs to be improved for publication.

Response 1: We are very glad that you have found it interesting. Thank you very much for all your suggestions.

Point 2:  INTRODUCTION. The introduction needs to include more information about prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics, particularly their role in improving health.

Response 2: It has already been changed through subtle changes in the first paragraph, we expect this to clarify the rest of the article (Lines 35-44).

Point 3: Line 74: replace “self-life” for “shelf-life”.  

Response 3: Agreed, already changed.

Point 4: Lines 75 to 77: The sentence “After the isolation, and characterization of probiotics, …” is somewhat confusing and should be rewritten to improve clarity.

Response 4: Agreed, already changed.

Point 5: METHODS: Methodology employed to extract the articles cited in the review should be included. Also, the criteria used to evaluate the strength of the available evidence could be considered.

Response 5: We explain it by modifying a paragraph of the introduction (Lines 85-89). We would like to mention that some concepts like fibers and resistant starches were not considered prebiotics in the previous definition of the term (since the new definition is relatively new and classifying a food ingredient as a prebiotic has already been stimulating the research in many areas of food, nutrition, and medical sciences). Thus, in the specific cases like “soluble fibers” and “resistant starch”, a more extensive revision had to be made through the available literature to select the articles.

Point 6: Studies regarding prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics derived from or associated with the vegetables under study should be presented through a table that summarizes most of the information.

Response 6: Agreed. We have already created a table that helps the understanding of each part. We hope it can help the reader through the manuscript.

Point 7: Current nomenclature should be used to name lactic acid bacteria species (e.g., Lactiplantibacillus plantarum instead of Lactobacillus plantarum).

Response 7: Ok, we have search for the specific cases and reviewed the manuscript looking for other names that needed to be changed. Nevertheless, in the references the former name remains.

Point 8: Lines 139 to 142: Revise the sentence “Only Weissella cibaria and Leuconostoc citreum displayed antagonistic activity towards foodborne pathogens, short-chain fatty acids production and adhesion to HT-29 human colon cell line [35,36]”. It is confusing in regard to the previous sentence.

Response 8: Agreed, we have corrected the phrase.

Point 9: Line 149: replace “which is” for “which are”.  

Response 9: Agreed, it has already been corrected.

Point 10: Lines 196 to 197: Rephrase the sentence “Agavins are known to reverse the metabolic disorders including microbiota changes”.

Response 10: Ok, we have resumed the effects we were talking about on a new phrase. We expect to be clear enough.

Point 11: Lines 292 to 293: revise the grammar in the sentence “They assessed an increase on Bifidobacteria, Bacteroides and Enterobacteria and on the metabolic level an hypocholesterolemic effect”.

Response 11: Agreed, we changed the sentence in order to make it more specific.

Point 12: Authors should include in the nopal review other studies concerning the lactic acid fermentation of cactus pear or cladodes, in particular using autochthonous LAB (e.g., DOI: 10.1016/J.LWT.2016.09.026; DOI: 10.1016/J.LWT.2017.05.058; DOI: 10.1039/C8FO01591K; DOI: 10.1016/J.FM.2016.06.009; DOI: 10.1039/C8FO01591K; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152575).

Response 12: Thank you very much for providing us this information. We have already included it to the draft.

Point 13: In some cases, the analyzed examples of synbiotics (e.g., in Nopal) do not meet the ISAPP definition (a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host) because beneficial effects on health were not demonstrated or they were not mentioned in the manuscript. They should be treated as potential synbiotics or refer to examples that fit the definition.

Response 13: Agreed, we also believe that it is a more correct form of presenting the information. We modify our previous note in lines 393-397 .

Point 14: Lines 402 to 404: Check the grammar of the sentence.

Response 14: Agreed, we already changed the phrase to clarify.

Point 15: Discussion section should be improved emphasizing future trends and prospects. In the actual form is very similar to the previous sections.

Response 15: We have added several new data in order to consolidate the section and to propose more innovative ideas that we know that have been growing on the food technology and manufacture fields. We believe that in the previous draft, the discussion seemed similar to the rest of the sections because in the narrative some ideas were missing. We reformulated the phrasing and added some connectors at the beginning and the end of the section. We hope that this will strengthen the last part of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please chck the legends of Table 3.

Author Response

Point 1: Please chck the legends of Table 3.

Response 1: We have already changed it, repositioning the legend "potential synbiotics" in the table, on the substrates that are considered only -potential- because they lack the full understanding of its health benefits (as suggested by reviewer #2).

In order to fullfill the second revision, several terms have been adjusted and texts in the table adjusted in order to ensure its understanding by the readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check some spell or grammar errors. E.g., in line 36, lines 415 to 419 or in the Tables.

Author Response

Point 1: Please check some spell or grammar errors. E.g., in line 36, lines 415 to 419 or in the Tables.

Response 1: In order to fullfill the second revision, the proposed details have been changed and several terms have been adjusted in the texts and tables to ensure its understanding by the readers.