Antibacterial Mechanism of Dellaglioa algida against Pseudomonas fluorescens and Pseudomonas fragi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors investigate the mechanism of action, antibacterial and antibiofilm activity (against two species of Pseudomonas, which are bacterial food contaminants), of a new type of Lactobacillus (Dellaglioa Algida).

The proposed topic is of interest as well as the methodological approach.

The material and method sections, the results and discussions are clearly and correctly described. In my opinion, the research and the way the article is written meet the conditions of publication in Fermentation, after a minimal revision. I will suggest some minor modification before publication: 1. In the title, it is written Aligida. 2. I recommend in the title Fluorescens and Fragi with small f. 3. Page 2, line 41, What does oral disease mean? It needs to be explained more clearly. 4. Page 2, line 71, cut and. 5. Page 2, line 79, spectrohpotometer (to be corrected). 6. Page 6, line 206, with or by?.

 

7. Page 6 line 208, insert the word figure before 2

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

We would like to thank you for your evaluation on our paper and providing us with many helpful comments and suggestions. We have seriously considered these comments and suggestions, and carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. The details are explained in the attached file (response numbers are in 1:1 correspondence with the comments). 

Wish the changes we made have improved our manuscript to a level that meets the criteria for publication in Fermentation.

Sincerely yours,

Yao Sun, Shiyu Liu, Zhe Zhan, Tianhui Wei, Tongqing Ma, Jie Sun, and Jinzhu Song.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors submitted a manuscript regarding the antibacterial effect of the cell-free supernatant from Dellaglioa algida. The work is interesting. However, it requires major revision. Specifically, materials and methods section must be checked meticulously. The discussion section must be extended. Besides, the manuscript requires editing from a native English speaker. Please, find attached the pdf file with my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

Many thanks for the reviewer’s evaluation and comments on our paper, we have carefully revised the manuscript under the suggestions. Firstly, Section 2 ‘materials and methods’ is checked considerably to revise the misuse of the words, the lack of information on materials and methods, and the grammar of the sentences. Secondly, we extend Subsection 3.5 ‘discussion’ by adding the related references and the experimental results therein, as well as the analysis in comparison way between our results and the related references. Finally, under the checking of a native speaker and three persons who have lived in English-speaking countries for at least three years, we go through the paper and revise the misuse of article, tense, and grammar, among others. All the revisions are marked in blue in the revised manuscript. For the convenience of the reviewer, the comments in the attached pdf （upload by reviewer）file can be found in the attached file （we upload） and are responded 1:1.

wish the changes we made have improved our manuscript to a level that meets the criteria for publication in Fermentation.

Sincerely yours,

Yao Sun, Shiyu Liu, Zhe Zhan, Tianhui Wei, Tongqing Ma, Jie Sun, and Jinzhu Song.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors improved the manuscript according to my suggestions. I have no further comments.