Next Article in Journal
Enhancing the Chemical Composition of Kombucha Fermentation by Adding Indian Gooseberry as a Substrate
Next Article in Special Issue
Achievements of Autochthonous Wine Yeast Isolation and Selection in Romania—A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Valorization of Delonix regia Pods for Bioethanol Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dynamics of Microbiota in Three Backslopped Liquid Sourdoughs That Were Triggered with the Same Starter Strains
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Exploring the Inhibitory Activity of Selected Lactic Acid Bacteria against Bread Rope Spoilage Agents

Fermentation 2023, 9(3), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030290
by Giovanna Iosca 1,2, Joanna Ivy Irorita Fugaban 2, Süleyman Özmerih 2, Anders Peter Wätjen 2, Rolf Sommer Kaas 2, Quốc Hà 2, Radhakrishna Shetty 2, Andrea Pulvirenti 1, Luciana De Vero 1,* and Claus Heiner Bang-Berthelsen 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Fermentation 2023, 9(3), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030290
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 13 March 2023 / Accepted: 14 March 2023 / Published: 16 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development and Application of Starter Cultures)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

The manuscript "Exploring the inhibitory activity of selected lactic acid bacteria against bread rope spoilage agents" has an interesting topic. It fits very well in the Fermentation journal. The research in this manuscript is fairly well organized and carried out. The manuscript is well-written, concise, and, in my opinion, has enough information in all sections abstract, introduction, material and methodology, discussion, and conclusion. Therefore, I recommend the paper for publication in present form.


Author Response

We kindly thank the reviewer 1 for the positive comments on our paper “ Exploring the inhibitory activity of selected lactic acid bacteria against bread rope spoilage agents” and the recommendation for publication in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some small corrections needed as they are mentioned in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We kindly thank the reviewer 2 for the revision and positive comments that helped us to improve the paper. We made all the changes required in the revised version of the manuscript.

Specific comments

Comment: Line 81: Was the identity of NFICC strains proved also by other identification test (e.g., microscopy, Gram-staining, catalase test, etc.), not just by MALDI? Sometimes it happens, that there are minor disbalance between the MALDI and the microscopy.

Answer: The Identification of the strains preserved in the NFICC collection completely rely on the MALDI-Biotyper or whole genome sequencing. This has been reported in the revised version.

Comment: Can you explain why those specific strains (named in Table 1) were selected for this research? Do they have some unique properties, or….?

Answer: The chosen strains listed in table 1 were selected based on the previous experimental works described into the references reported. In particular, UMCC strains already displayed an anti-spoilage potential, while NFICC strains were suitable to ferment plant-based substrates. We added these details in the text.

 

Comment: Table 2: please specify more deeply: vomit (animal, human…after food poisoning or not?), plant (which exactly) and food poisoning incident (sample from food or vomit or…?).

Answer: The information collected and reported in table 2 regarding the isolation matrices of the different spoilage agents tested in this study were collected from the DSMZ website and NFICC strain reports. Unfortunately, no other specific information was listed.

Comment: Line 163: what type of bread? What was it quantity?

Answer: The required information has been added to the text

 

Comment: Line 168: please add the enzyme´s optimal conditions.

Answer: The required information has been added to the main text

 

Comment: Line 170: to which pH value was the medium adjusted?

Answer: The required information has been added to the main text as requested

 

Comment: Line 338: Start the sentence only with: The screening of potential….

Answer: The required change has been made in the text (now line 391).

 

Minor comments

Comment: In abstract than in line 171, ex vivo should be written in italics.

Answer: The required change has been made in the main text

 

Comment: Line 76: please correct – either you use Lactobacillus, Pediococcus or lactobacilli and pediococci.

Answer: The changes have been made in the text

 

Comment: Table 2: please explain the abbreviation BSG under the Table. Moreover, Common Juniper should be written in italics.

Answer: The changes have been made in the text

 

Comment: Line 126: no article before 29 isolates.

Answer: The change has been made in the text

 

Comment: Line 194: 0.1 mg/mL instead of 0,1 mg/mL Table S1, Table 3, Figure 1-6 (also in Figures headings): please use dot instead of comma for decimal numbers

Answer: The required changes have been made where applicable. However, the software used for the production of figures 1-6 does not allow this change.

Back to TopTop