Comparison of Trichoderma longibrachiatum Xyloglucanase Production Using Tamarind (Tamarindus indica) and Jatoba (Hymenaea courbaril) Seeds: Factorial Design and Immobilization on Ionic Supports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be rewritten. The current version looks similar to the introduction. The innovation and results of the work should be written clearly in the abstract.

 

 

The authors have presented very short results and discussion. There is no proper discussion of optimization of cultivation with jatoba seeds. The correlation between carbon source (type and concentration) and enzyme production is required to discuss thoroughly with suitable latest references.

 

 

There is no discussion of enzymatic immobilization results. Authors must discuss their results with appropriate reasons and with suitable references.

 

 

 

As the authors did not discuss any significant limitations of the current work, it may be worthwhile to mention a few.

Author Response

Ribeirão Preto, September 20^th, 2022

Dear Ms. Karida Cheng

Assistant Editor, Fermentation

Find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Comparison in the Trichoderma longibrachiatum xyloglucanase production using tamarind (Tamarindus indica) and jatoba (Hymenaea courbaril) seeds: factorial design and immobilization on ionic supports”. We appreciate your time spent and of the reviewers on the revision of this study. We also would like to express our gratitude for the pertinent comments you have made on our work.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Maria de Lourdes T. M. Polizeli

Corresponding author

 Lines 20-41: Abstract was rewritten;

Line 102: the font size was changed;

Line 158; the word “formula” was replaced by “Equation (1)”;

Lines 182-183: the word “remotion” was replaced by “removal”;

Line 189: the word “poliethylimino” was replaced by “polyethyleneimine”;

Lines 195-198: the concept of immobilization efficiency (IE) was added;

Lines 233, 278, 287, 288, and 337: the underline of the degrees was removed;

Lines 251-269: were added;

Lines 302-305: were added;

Line 311: the word “immobilizing” was replaced by “immobilized”;

Line 312: the expression “on these supports” was added;

Table 5.: the immobilization efficiency (%) was added;

Lines 316-327: were added;

Lines 427-492: the references were corrected or added.

Response to reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer 01:

The abstract should be rewritten. The current version looks similar to the introduction. The innovation and results of the work should be written clearly in the abstract.

R.: The authors appreciate their time and review. The abstract was rewritten with the innovation and results of the work written clearly.

The authors have presented very short results and discussion. There is no proper discussion of optimization of cultivation with jatoba seeds. The correlation between carbon source (type and concentration) and enzyme production is required to discuss thoroughly with suitable latest references.

R.: The discussion and the correlation between carbon source (type and concentration) and enzyme production were added, lines 252-270.

There is no discussion of enzymatic immobilization results. Authors must discuss their results with appropriate reasons and with suitable references.

R.: The discussion of enzymatic immobilization results with appropriate reasons and with suitable references was added, lines 317-328.

As the authors did not discuss any significant limitations of the current work, it may be worthwhile to mention a few.

R.: A significant limitation of the current work was mentioned in lines 303-306.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, there are some minor changes which I reccomend. Comments and suggestions are marked within the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Ribeirão Preto, September 20^th, 2022

Dear Ms. Karida Cheng

Assistant Editor, Fermentation

Find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Comparison in the Trichoderma longibrachiatum xyloglucanase production using tamarind (Tamarindus indica) and jatoba (Hymenaea courbaril) seeds: factorial design and immobilization on ionic supports”. We appreciate your time spent and of the reviewers on the revision of this study. We also would like to express our gratitude for the pertinent comments you have made on our work.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Maria de Lourdes T. M. Polizeli

Corresponding author

Lines 20-41: Abstract was rewritten;

Line 102: the font size was changed;

Line 158; the word “formula” was replaced by “Equation (1)”;

Lines 182-183: the word “remotion” was replaced by “removal”;

Line 189: the word “poliethylimino” was replaced by “polyethyleneimine”;

Lines 195-198: the concept of immobilization efficiency (IE) was added;

Lines 233, 278, 287, 288, and 337: the underline of the degrees was removed;

Lines 251-269: were added;

Lines 302-305: were added;

Line 311: the word “immobilizing” was replaced by “immobilized”;

Line 312: the expression “on these supports” was added;

Table 5.: the immobilization efficiency (%) was added;

Lines 316-327: were added;

Lines 427-492: the references were corrected or added.

Response to reviewers’ comments:

 Reviewer 02:

Dear authors, there are some minor changes which I recommend. Comments and suggestions are marked within the manuscript.

R.: The authors appreciate their time and review. All the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer were made, and they are in highlight.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have well supplemented and corrected the manuscript according to the comments.

The quality of the manuscript has been improved.

Double-check the style and typos in the proofreading stage.