Learning from Tradition: Health-Promoting Potential of Traditional Lactic Acid Fermentation to Drive Innovation in Fermented Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and the manuscript is very well written. I have few notes that will help the paper to be improved:
ln 73 USD20 billion -> USD 20 billion
3.2. Metabolic processes during fermentation
You have mentioned mashing, grinding and soaking as pre-processes and have given additional information only for soaking. Please, give some information about the other 2 processes
ln. 417 Write the names of LAB in Italic
Table 3 Leave a line between all the substrates because it is difficult for reading sometimes. Also write all the substrates with small or with capital letter, because in some cases all are written with capital one in other with small one
Sometimes you have written L. delbrueckii ssp. Bulgaricus (table 3) and L. Lactis (ln. 493), so please, correct it
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting and touches on very interesting topics. Unfortunately, its current form cannot be accepted for publication and needs a minor revision.
Main comments:
Nomenclature
E.g. Line 39: analogue of yoghurt - incorrect terminology. Line 399: The definition of milk, like yoghurt, is strictly defined. Like the cheese analogue, the yoghurt analogue is made from ingredients of dairy origin. Although some authors allow this nomenclature in the literature, please replace it with dessert or pudding. There is no such thing as soy, oat, rice milk, etc. These are beverages!
Line 65: note as above. "plant-based dairy analogue" I suggest replacing with "plant-based products"
Line 425: "plant-based milks" versus "plant-based yoghurt analogue" - what is the difference between the products? Why is one analogue and the other not?
Please apply the above comment throughout the text. Products made using only plant-based raw materials are a completely different group of products and have nothing to do with analogues of dairy products. If the change of nomenclature is not possible in some places of the manuscript, please make an appropriate comment on the above issue in the introduction.
Table 1: the study is correct, but I am missing European products. If it is possible, please add them.
High level of generalization
In section 4.2, the authors write a lot of information about peptides with potential biological effects on humans. The text reads well. However, it is too general. Please give examples of specific BPs isolated from specific products, etc. Also, if you are describing bioavailability, it is worth giving some quantitative values; however, this comment applies to the whole text! I know this is a review paper and not a discussion of results. However, more details should be given in the text. For example, line 361 - what do the authors mean when they write "low pH"? If it is written that something was reduced, then it should be written how much (e.g. %) the reduction is or whether the reduction was significant. This is like writing: "Milk is sterilised by using the right temperature for the process". What does the author have in mind when he writes the correct temperature?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with a very interesting topic that actually have scientific, technological and industrial importance. The text is well organized and the literature cited is comprehensive, recent, and relevant for the topic addressed. I think the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.
The main consideration is that the former genus Lactobacillus has been recently revised by Zheng et al. (Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. DOI 10.1099/ijsem.0.004107), as cited by the Authors. Please, revise the nomenclature of the paper accordingly (i.e. line 134, 279 etc.: former lactobacillus genus?) and use proper abbreviation for the different species (that have now different genera too). In table 1 the genera abbreviation can not be “ L. “ for all then new genera but different abbreviation have to be used (so in the whole manuscript).
In addition abbreviation used changes across the manuscript (i.e. Lb. in line 322).
Another suggestion is to wide the part regarding the safety of plant base fermented dairy analogues. Listeria monocytogenes can be a serious concern in this kind of foods and some indication about are due (i.e. some related outbreaks? The role of a fast acidification in the vegan “cheese” or vegan milks? The importance to set a correct fermentation consortia etc.
Other considerations:
Line 45-48: please, rewrite the sentence, not clear
Line 54-58: In the fermentation processes starter cultures are usually used in order to achieve a fast acidification to guarantee the correct pH drop and food safety (i.e. against Listeria growth etc.). I suggest to add a sentence to explain why the defined starter cultures are employed (with or without added sugars), not giving a necessarily negative connotation to the phrase.
Line 93: please avoid repetitions.
Line 134:
Line 145: Micrococcus are not spore forming bacteria.
Line 237: fimbriae
Line 253: used?
Line271: comma instead of point after bracket
Line 424-425: please, rephrase, not clear
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
