Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Wild Edible Fruits of Tripura, Northeast India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Suggested title: Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Wild Edible Fruits of North-East India

  

Abstract

1.              It is important that the writing is in the third person

2.              A brief introduction to the research topic is missing.

 

Line 52: It is suggested that a map of Indian communities be added.

Line 93. Remove "... in the parenthesis"

Section 2.3.1. it is not necessary to indicate the entire Kjeldhal method, I think it is important to place the method number or the reference of the methods for all determinations (moisture, ash, and protein). In this case, why was "ethereal extract" and fiber not determined?

Section 2.4. there is a lack of references to where the methodology was based.

Line 152: The methodology for obtaining energy, on which references is it based?

In the section 3.1. a table could be attached where it is typically mentioned for the use of the 7 fresh wild edible fruits.

Table 1 needs to be analyzed to see if there are any significant differences.

Figure 1 is not necessary, it is repetitive, and the values of some compounds are not seen. They are not of the same magnitude.

Section 3.2. Why was the non-nutritional components that these fruits may have not been determined? It is suggested to add and highlight the importance of considering that they may contain non-nutritional compounds,

Dig a little deeper into the "importance of each of the macronutrients", as well as the usefulness they could have.

Delete Figure 3.

It is suggested that a correlation analysis between macronutrients and antioxidant activity be added.

The conclusions are confusing. Rewrite by integrating numerical data.

Author Response

Authors are thankful to respective reviewer valuable comments and suggestions, which help to improve the overall quality of paper. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript based on reviewer comment as follows...

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment #1: Suggested title: Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of the Wild Edible Fruits of North-East India

Response#1: Thank you for your suggestion. The title has been changed in the corrected manuscript as suggested.

Comment#2: Abstract, (1) It is important that the writing is in the third person; (2) A brief introduction to the research topic is missing.

Response#2: Thank you for your comment. In the abstract (1) third person writing style and (2) a brief introduction of the study has been incorporated.

Comment#3: Line 52: It is suggested that a map of Indian communities be added.

Response#4: Thank you for your comment. A map of Indian communities has been placed in ESI Fig. S1.

Comment#5: Line 93. Remove "... in the parenthesis"

Response#5: Thank you for your comment. As suggested “as stated in the parenthesis” has been removed in line 93.

Comment#6: Section 2.3.1, it is not necessary to indicate the entire Kjeldhal method. It is important to place the method number or the reference of the methods of all determinations (moisture, ash, and protein). In this case, why was “ethereal extract” and not fiber determined?

Response#6: Thank you for your comment. Detail methodology for Kjeldhal method  was removed, only the reference [30] was kept in the manuscript. Only the references for determinations of other parameters such as moisture, ash, protein were kept. In case of fibre, authors completed partial evaluation so not included in the text

Comment#7: Section 2.4. There is a lack of references to where the methodology was based.

Response#7: Thank you for your comment. Reference [31] was placed in the section 2.4 to indicate methodology.

Comment#8: Line 152: The methodology for obtaining energy, on which references is it based?

Response#8: Thank you for your comment. The methodology for estimation of energy is modified from Ref. [34], it has been included in the text.

Comment#9: In the section 3.1. a table could be attached where it is typically mentioned for the use of the 7 fresh wild edible fruits.

Response#9: Thank you for your comment. All the fruits were reported in Ref. 15, the Table S1 was thus placed in ESI.

Comment#10: Table 1 needs to be analyzed to see if there are any significant differences

Response#10: Thank you for your comment. In the Table 1 macronutrient composition have been presented for six different minor wild edible fruits which are not identical and have different qualities as well as taste. Therefore, if we calculate the significant difference among the fruits, it would not provide justified results being the fruits having different characteristics. (Consulted with Expert of Statistics)

Comment#11: Figure 1 is not necessary, it is repetitive, and the values of some compounds are not seen. They are not of the same magnitude.

Response#11: Thank you for your comment. Figure 1 has been replaced by Figure S3 and placed in ESI.

Comment#12:  In the section 3.2, why was the non-nutritional components that these fruits may have not been determined? It is suggested to add and highlight the importance of considering that they may contain non-nutritional compounds.

Response#12: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestions, the authors already determined non-nutritional components which included in the MS as antioxidant activity, phytochemicals, total phenolic content and total flavonoid, also the authors highlighted the importance of non-nutritional components.

Comment# 13: Dig a little deeper into the “importance of each of the macronutrients” as well as the usefulness they could have.

Response#13: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestion the authors have added importance of macronutrients in the corrected manuscript.

 Comment # 14: Delete Figure 3

Response# 14: Thank you for your comment. Figure 3 has been replaced by Figure S4 and placed in ESI.

Comment # 15: It is suggested that a correlation analysis between macronutrients and antioxidant activity be added.

Response#15: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the authors have analysed correlation between macronutrients and antioxidant activity. The important outcomes are described in the main text line no 378-384 and correlation analysis table found in Table 6.

Comment # 16: The Conclusions are confusing. Rewrite by integrating numerical data.

Response # 16: Thank you for your comment. The authors have corrected the conclusion part as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript investigated the nutrient contents and antioxidant capacities of the six wild edible fruits available in four districts of Tripura, and further described a linear regression analysis to find out the dependency among the parameters of nutrients. This study provided a quality data base, however, this report is more like a test report, the data analysis and results are too simple. Therefore, the innovative and academic value of this report need to be imporved. 

Author Response

Authors are thankful to respective reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions, which help to improve the overall quality of paper. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript based on reviewer comments as follows...

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment: The manuscript investigated the nutrient contents and antioxidant capacities of the six wild edible fruits available in four districts of Tripura and further described a linear regression analysis to find out the dependency among the parameters of nutrients. This study provided a quality data base, however, this report is more like a test report, the data analysis and results are too simple. Therefore, the innovative and academic value of this report needs to be improved. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We politely disagree with the learned reviewer mentioning our study as test report. We did lot of exercises with our data and added few more tables. With response of reviewer suggestions, the authors corrected and improved the manuscript by added literature, references and other grammatical errors for improved the quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract, title and references

●          The aim of this study is to report nutrient composition and antioxidant property of 06 (six) wild edible fruits viz. wild orange (Citrus macroptera), Chinese lard (Hodgsonia macrocarpa Cogn.), madhabilata (Stixis suaveolens Roxb. Pierre), wild small black jamun (Syzygium assamicum), Indian coffee plum (Flacour- tia jangomas Lour. Raeusch), and gamboge (Garcinia gummi-gutta (L.) Robs) which are available in Tripura, a North-East state of India.

●          The study clearly showed the results would provide a baseline database for the nutrient profile of these fruits as well as enhance create awareness regarding the fruits value which helps biodiversity of the forest area of Tripura.

●          The title of this paper clearly shows what the authors have done.

References

All the references are relevant, recent some are very old try to use recent ones and referenced correctly.

 

Introduction/background

●          Authors have clearly mentioned the background of the research in the introduction portion.

●          The main aim of this research has not been presented properly in the introduction portion. Try to work on it make it readable.

Methods

●          Raw material selection was done properly.

●          The methods of all the parameters has been defined and measured properly.

●          All the methods of parameters are valid and reliable and have been taken from authentic sources with references provided.

Results

●          The authors have presented the data in a proper way. All the tables and figures are relevant and are presented clearly.

●          The titles of the parameters are labelled properly and are categorised in a group appropriately.

●          Statistical significant terms are used properly.

 

Discussion and Conclusions

●          The results have been discussed using different sources of references and have been placed in the context without being interpreted.

●          Conclusion justifies the main objectives of this research.

 

Overall

 

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article. 

1.              Authors need work on English. There are many grammatical errors

2.              Authors are advised to strictly follow journals guidelines

 

Author Response

Authors are thankful to respective reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions, which help to improve the overall quality of paper. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript based on reviewer comments as follows...

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract, title and references

Comment # 1: The aim of this study is to report nutrient composition and antioxidant property of 06 (six) wild edible fruits viz. wild orange (Citrus macroptera), Chinese lard (Hodgsonia macrocarpa Cogn.), Madhabilata (Stixis suaveolens Roxb. Pierre), wild small black jamun (Syzygium assamicum), Indian coffee plum (Flacourtia jangomas Lour. Raeusch), and gamboge (Garcinia gummi-gutta (L.) Robs) which are available in Tripura, a North-East state of India.

Response #1: Thank you for your comment. The author’s response with reviewer suggestions included the aim of this study in abstract section as well as conclusion parts.

Comment #2: The study clearly showed the results would provide a baseline database for the nutrient profile of these fruits as well as enhance create awareness regarding the fruits value which helps biodiversity of the forest area of Tripura.

Response # 2: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestion, we rewrite some parts of the manuscript including some relevant literatures.

Comment # 3: The title of this paper clearly shows what the authors have done.

 Response # 3: Thank you for your comment. The authors have changed the title of the manuscript for more precise reflection of the study

References

Comment #4: All the references are relevant, recent some are very old try to use recent ones and referenced correctly.

Response #4: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the authors sorted out all the old reference and replaced by recent literature.

Introduction/background

Comment#5: Authors have clearly mentioned the background of the research in the introduction portion.

Response#5: Thank you for your comment. Authors also corrected and improved the research background in the introduction portion.

Comment#6: The main aim of this research has not been presented properly in the introduction portion. Try to work on it make it readable.

Response#6: Thank you for your comment. As suggested by the reviewer, the introduction portion has corrected, where main aim of the research reflects clearly. Hope now the ms is more readable.

Methods

Comment#7: Raw material selection was done properly.

Response # 7: Thank you for your comment. The authors corrected the materials and methods.

Comments#8: The methods of all the parameters have been defined and measured properly.

Response#8:  Thank you for your comment. The authors corrected all the tables, methodology and well-defined parameters.

Comment#9: All the methods of parameters are valid and reliable and have been taken from authentic sources with references provided.

Response#9: Thank you for your comment. With response of reviewer’s suggestions, the authors placed valid references with authentic sources.

Results

Comment#10: The authors have presented the data in a proper way. All the tables and figures are relevant and are presented clearly.

Response#10: Thank you for your comment. The authors have presented the data properly. Result has been presented.

Comment#11: The titles of the parameters are labeled properly and are categorized in a group appropriately.

Response#11: Thank you for your comment. As suggested by the reviewers, the title of the parameters in the table and figure presented properly.

Comment#12: Statistical significant terms are used properly.

Response#12: Thank you for your comment.

Discussion and Conclusions

Comment#13: The results have been discussed using different sources of references and have been placed in the context without being interpreted.

Response#13: Thank you for your comment. With response of Reviewers suggestions, the authors placed different references in the discussion and conclusion parts.

Comment# 14: Conclusion justifies the main objectives of this research.

Response#14: Thank you for your comment. The authors corrected and added vital points of research objectives in the conclusion part.

Overall

Comment#15: Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article. 

Response#15: Thank you for your comment. As suggested by the reviewers the authors have corrected with placing additional information to improve the article.

Comment#16: Authors need work on English. There are many grammatical errors

Response#16: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewer suggestions, the whole manuscript rechecked and corrected by professional grammatical/language editing software (Grammarly).

Comment#17: Authors are advised to strictly follow journals guidelines

Response#17: Thank you for your comment. According to reviewers advise, the authors corrected the manuscript following journal guidelines.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In this revised manuscript, the author did lots of exercises with the data, table and text and the manuscript quality was improved indeed. In the origin paper, the author give the correlation analysis among the macronutrient compositions, micronutrient compositions, antioxidant activity, and added the correlation analysis between the macronutrients and antioxidant activity in the revised manuscript, respectively. However, i think that noly  correlation results are too simple to describe the relationships between the nutrient composition and antioxidant activity, for results are predictable and lack of further innovation. It is suggested to use some statistics models to analyze the relationship, such as PCA, regression model or etc. In this way, we could find which are the key compositions affecting the antioxidant acitiby, and how does that affect the activities. Therefore, i personally think the overall scholarship contribution of this paper is not enough. 

 

•  

•  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript as per your suggestions. We studied the statistical analysis and added a subheading "Statistical analysis" in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. In the manuscript, statistics are added in Table 1, Table 3 (now a table is added instead of Figure 1), and Table 5. We also performed PCA of 26 variables; five principal components (PCs) were extracted with an eigen value of > 0.9 and explained 100% of the variance in the data. You can find details in section 3.4.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept

Author Response

Thank you for your kind acceptance of our manuscript. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

 Accept in present form