Role of Curing Agents in the Adaptive Response of the Bioprotective Latilactobacillus curvatus CRL 705 from a Physiologic and Proteomic Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors performed a proteomic analysis on a bio protective strain of L. curvets grown in a chemically defined medium with or without curing agents similar to those which would be used in sausage fermentation. The design is very simple and the number of samples very low (only late exponential phase cells were compared, with three biological replicates). The paper is well written and the results are clearly presented, although more in terms of mechanistic explanation would have been appreciated

l46 it refers to the strain? Please rephrase

statistical analysis: differences in expression are quite low; can you elaborate a little bit on false discovery rate and protection for multiple testing etc.. Can you drop a few words on the power of your test?

figure 1: please repaginate or provide a x axis scale for all panes

figure 2 consider using mol L-1 and add a few words about yields in the text

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is correctly written, based on professional, but very old literature. It ends correctly with a clearly stated goal.

The method is described correctly, but there are a few details missing that need to be filled in (they are below in the comments).

The results and description of the results are OK, the figures need to be improved (comments below).

The discussion of the results is correct, but the references to the literature are very old. The literature should be replaced and supplemented with newer ones.

Literature – this is where I have the biggest reservations. The list includes 49 items, among them there is not a single item from the latest 2-3 years! More than half of the cited publications are older than 10 years.

The literature should be updated and the discussion should be corrected.

 

Below are some comments about the manuscript:

 

 

Keywords - Please change keywords to ones other than those in the title of the manuscript. This will increase the ability to search for an article in the database.

Throughout the manuscript, the names of bacterial genera and species should be written in italics, e.g. L. curvatus CRL 705 (line 195).

Line 39 – please explain the abbreviation a_w (the letter _w should be subscript)

Lines 74-84 – please provide Genbank numbers (or other assigned numbers) of the tested strains.

Lines 74-100 – please provide the producers of microbiological media (producer, city, country) or provide the producers of individual media components.

Line 89 – How much was the OD? 600? If so, please enter OD₆₀₀=0.05-0.10

Line 95-100 – why were the plates incubated at 30 °C and not at 37 °C? In the technical documents regarding MRS agar from this manufacturer (Britania), the incubation temperature is 33-37 °C. Please explain.

Lines 194-208 – Figure 1B is not cited in the text.

Figures 1A, BC - all OX and OY axes must be labeled, the legend for the graphs is also missing.

Figure 2 - the OY axis should be signed, the unit itself is not enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made some corrections, but unfortunately not all of them. The literature has been slightly refreshed, but there are still many old items (the reviewer accepts these corrections).

Below are some comments; without amendments, the article cannot be adopted.

2.5. Differential protein expression analysis and 2.5.1. L. curvatus CRL705 cells recovery -  where did the methodology come from? Please cite the source.

Line 134. L. curvatus should be written in italics.

Linia 233. Listeria monocytogenes should be written in italics.

Figure 1A and 1B do not have time units on the OX axis. The caption under Figure 1C is difficult to read for the above graphs.

Table 1. The substrates used should be labeled as substrates. There is a caption "time" at the top and it is a bit illegible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx