In Vitro Assessment of Probiotic and Technological Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Indigenously Fermented Cereal-Based Food Products
, Neetu Kumra Taneja 2, Devendra Jain 3, Ankur Ojha 4, Dinesh Kumawat 1 and Vijendra Mishra 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments are given in the manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear sir/madam,
Kindly find the attached point-by-point response to the your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes an extensive in vitro characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from various cereal-based fermented products consumed in a particular region of India, with the aim of finding potentially probiotic strains. The work describes a large number of analytical techniques for such characterization, in good English, but it must be said that its originality only refers to the fact that the strains were isolated from a particular region of a country. Works of this type are abundant in the bibliography. It must also be said that, as the authors indicate, the true probiotic value of the selected strains will only be achieved with in vivo studies. There are several formal issues that need to be improved, and they are detailed:
-Abstract: indicate genus and species of KMUDR1 and KMUDR9 strains
- Genus and species of microorganisms, always in italics (see References)
-p. 2, line 67: the authors are wrong to write that Lactobacillus and Enterococcus are the most used LAB as probiotics (I assume they mean probiotics for humans). The most used genera are Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, and to a lesser extent, Bacillus. Enterococci are used as probiotics for certain animal species, not for humans.
- Materials and Methods: Modify the order of tests performed. The molecular identification of the isolates selected for the study must be carried out and shown in the manuscript before showing their characterization. It makes no sense to speak in almost all the work of the strains studied, indicating only their identifying number. In short: 2.7 should be placed as 2.3
On the other hand, in Results, 3.10 should be placed as 3.1
- 2.1: How much samples were studied?
- 2.4.4: What is BA?
- Tables: need various modifications
Table 1: Header: replace "isolate" with "strain"; delete "No" ; delete "Exposure time" (it was already written in the title); indicate the genus and species of the strains, not just their numerical identification.
Align the numerical results in the body of the Table. You can increase the size of it.
- Table 2: Header: Replace "isolate" with "strain"; delete ""exposure time @?? o.3%...." (already written in the title); there are 4 "KMUDR9" strains?
-p.9, lines 402-404: italics for genus and species.The strains used for this assay must be indicated in Materials and Methods
-Table 3:Modify the title, thus: "Antibacterial activity (diameter, in mm, of ihibition zone) of LAB strains"
Header: Delete "Antibacterial activity test" (already indicated in the title) and "(ZOI in mm)"; replace "isolate" with "strain"
. Include genus and species of LAB strains
-p. 10, lines 408-412: strains of molds and yeasts used should be listed in Materials and Methods, not here, and should be in italics.
- Table 4: modify Title idem Table 3 and include genus and species of the LAB strains
- p. 10, line 420: @ ??
- Fig. 1: units are missing from the counts on the ordinate axis. Title: @ ?? It is missing to indicate genus and species
- Figs. 2-4: It is missing to indicate genus and species
- 3.7: Missing comment on amylolytic activity
- Table 5: Modify the title as follows: "Amylolytic and BSH activities, and H2O2 production of LAB strains"
Header: Replace "isolate No" with "Strain"; Delete: "Clear zone....colonies", "(Precipitation zones....colonies)", and "Production )Blue....colonies)". It was already explained before.
. Indicate genus and species
- Table 6: Modify the title as follows: "Antibiotic susceptibility (diameter, in mm, of inhibition zones)"
. Header: remove "(ZOI in ...SD)"; replace "Tested LAB isolates" with "Strain"; indicate genus and species.
- Table 7: It's not necesary. All results are negative and this is discussed in 3.8.2
- Table 8: Modify the title as follows: "Cell Viability (log 10 CFU/ml) of LAB strains during....(24 h at 37ºC) and storage (21 days at 4ºC)
. Header: replace "Isolate No" with "Strain" ; and delete ""(21 days at refrigeration conditions". Delete all "log 10 CFU/ml)"
- p. 18, first paragraph: it is necessary to comment on the results obtained for the isolated strains
. p.587: Last. plantarum ??
.
Author Response
Dear sir/madam,
Kindly find the attached point by point response to the reviewer’s comments of Round 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have sufficiently adapted the manuscript to the indications given in the first review. There are a few things left to adjust: - the use of italics for genus and species of microorganisms in References was not taken care of
- Point 5: as to where in the manuscript to indicate what is related to the identification of the strains, what they indicated could be accepted considering that the cost to identify the chosen strains is less than that necessary to identify all the strains isolated in the first instance.
-The authors still do not indicate how many samples were studied
- Table 5: "Amylolytic and BSH activities, and ..."
- Since Table 7 was deleted, Table 8 becomes Table 7
- Conclusions, 1st line: "...isolation and characterization in vitro of probiotic..."
Author Response
Dear sir/madam,
Kindly find the attached point by point response to the reviewer’s comments of Round 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
