Changes and Driving Mechanism of Microbial Community Structure during Paocai Fermentation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Changes and Driving Mechanism of Microbial Community Structure during Paocai Fermentation" provides valuable information and may be published in " Fermentation"
In the article, I would only recommend adding an explanation to the abbreviations. Please add also the complete list of abbreviations.
Author Response
Response to reviewers
We gratefully thank you for your time spend making your constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly rasied the quality of manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment,brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered.Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.
Point1:In the article, I would only recommend adding an explanation to the abbreviations. Please add also the complete list of abbreviations.
Response1 :Sorry for the difficulty in reading many abbreviations without adding explanations, they have been modified and added, please check.
During the examination of the manuscript, some other errors were found and corrected.Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable advice.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is very interesting, and contains many data useful to comprehend the mechanisms and changes that happen during Paocai fermentation.
Nevertheless the manuscript requires to be improved, expecially as regards the English language, and the microbial nomenclature. Several inaccuracies in the text need to be solved to improve the comprehension fo the text.
Specific comments are appended below:
Introduction:
More information on Paocai should be reported (e.g. kind of vegetable employed, fermentation conditions, which part of the product is consumed, and so on).
Materials and methods:
The reference methods for paragraph 2.2. should be indicated, or described, or a a literature reference should be added.
Paragraph 2.3: the DNA was extracted from the juice of the product? The authors indicate 40 ml of sample, suggesting that the juice was analysed.
Paragraph 2.5. the sentences should be better written. The firts part of the text appears as a protocol to be followed, instead of a mate-met section.
Results:
Paragraph 3.1. I do not understand why the analyses were performed on the liquid part of the product.
Paragraph 3.2: how were the differences “between” calculated?
Figure 3: the legend of figure 3 is not correct.
The authors should consider that not only chemical-physical parameters affect the product microbiota, but also the opposite relationship is real. If it is not true, the authors should better explain why.
Legend of figure 4 should be corrected (the letters in the figure and in the legedn do not correspond to each other).
Legend of figure 6: please revise the puctuation.
Paragrapf 3.6: could the authors explain (also in materials and methods section) how they performed the analysis COG?
L301-309: please reformulate.
L314: actually glycolysis does not require the presence of oxygen to take place, but it is not correct to affirm that it takes place in absence of oxygen.
L315-316: the sentence is not clear.
L331: please correct “Exiguobacterim”.
L338: Actinobacillusd?
L418: OUT or OTU?
L443: italic is missing.
L461 and so on: the nomenclature of Lactobacillus genus has changed. Please check and correct.
L520: please check.
L543: it is true, nevertheless the genus Aspergillus, as well as Penicillium are also responsible for the production of mycotoxins with adverse effect on the consumers’ health. The authors should mention also these safety aspects.
Author Response
Response to reviewers
We gratefully thank you for your time spend making your constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly rasied the quality of manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment,brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered.Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.
Point1:More information on Paocai should be reported (e.g. kind of vegetable employed, fermentation conditions, which part of the product is consumed, and so on).
Response 1:Some more detailed information has been added in the Introduction, please check.
Point2:The reference methods for paragraph 2.2. should be indicated, or described, or a a literature reference should be added.
Response 2:References have been added to make the content more complete, please check.
Point3:Paragraph 2.3: the DNA was extracted from the juice of the product? The authors indicate 40 ml of sample, suggesting that the juice was analysed.
Response 3:In fact, we analyze the physical and chemical factors and microorganisms of paocai liquid, the reasons are as follows: 1. The microorganisms of paocai liquid are richer than that of pickles itself, and the pickles themselves bubble in the pickles liquid, and the microorganisms on the surface of pickles interact with the paocai fermentation liquid. 2. If the future application of production, pickled cabbage liquid itself is more valuable than pickled cabbage, such as back-slopping technology.
Point4:Paragraph 2.5. the sentences should be better written. The firts part of the text appears as a protocol to be followed, instead of a mate-met section.
Response 4:The sentences has been revised and rewritten, please check.
Point5:Paragraph 3.1. I do not understand why the analyses were performed on the liquid part of the product.
Response 5:as same as response3.
Point6: how were the differences “between” calculated?
Response 6:This calculation method has been added to Paragraph 3.2,please check.
Point7: Figure 3: the legend of figure 3 is not correct.
Response 7:It has been modified, please check.
Point8: The authors should consider that not only chemical-physical parameters affect the product microbiota, but also the opposite relationship is real. If it is not true, the authors should better explain why.
Response 8:Microorganisms and physical and chemical factors interact with each other,for example, lactic acid produced by lactic acid bacteria affects the fermentation environment and makes the environment acidic, while the acidic environment will inhibit the growth of some microorganisms, so they actually affect each other.
Point9:Legend of figure 4 should be corrected (the letters in the figure and in the legedn do not correspond to each other).
Response 9:The Legend of figure 4 have been corrected,plesae check.
Point10:Legend of figure 6: please revise the puctuation.
Response 10:The Legend of figure 6 have been corrected,plesae check.
Point11:Paragrapf 3.6: could the authors explain (also in materials and methods section) how they performed the analysis COG?
Response 11:The analysis method for COG has been added to Paragrapf 3.6 and 2.5, please check.
Point12:L301-309: please reformulate.
Response 12:These sentences have been modified, please check
Point13:L314: actually glycolysis does not require the presence of oxygen to take place, but it is not correct to affirm that it takes place in absence of oxygen.
Response13:The end product of glycolysis is pyruvate, which is formed by lactate dehydrogenase in the absence of oxygen.These sentences have been modified, please check.
Point14:L315-316: the sentence is not clear.
Response14:These sentences have been modified, please check.
Point15:L331: please correct “Exiguobacterim”.
Response15:It has revised as” Exiguobacterium”
Point16:L338: Actinobacillusd?
Response16:It has revised as”Actinobacillus”,please check.
Point17:L418: OUT or OTU?
Response17:OTU has corrected, of course.Please check.
Point18:L443: italic is missing.
Response18: Italic have already added.please check.
Point19:L461 and so on: the nomenclature of Lactobacillus genus has changed. Please check and correct.
Response19:It has been corrected, please check.
Point20:L520: please check.
Response20:A missing space here has been corrected, please check.
Point21:L543: it is true, nevertheless the genus Aspergillus, as well as Penicillium are also responsible for the production of mycotoxins with adverse effect on the consumers’ health. The authors should mention also these safety aspects.
Response21:some studies indicate that the amino-type nitrogen, which determines the quality of fermented vegetables, was correlated with the relative abundance of Aspergillus in prior to fermentation. In addition, these strains had a negative correlation with the salt concentration, and the genus Aspergillus, as well as Penicillium has a very low relative content at late fermentation stage.
During the examination of the manuscript, some other errors were found and corrected.Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable advice.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the paper has been improved. Please change "Lactobacillus plantarum" into "Lactiplantibacillus plantarum".
Author Response
We gratefully thank you for your time spend making your constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly rasied the quality of manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. We have changed "Lactobacillus plantarum" into "Lactiplantibacillus plantarum",and corrected “Latilactobacillus curvatus”.And some other problems have been corrected, please check.Our heartfelt thanks to you.
