Potential Prebiotic Effect of Cava Lees: Changes in Gut Microbiota
, Javier Gonzalez-Linares 4, Montserrat Riu-Aumatell 1,2,3,* and Elvira López-Tamames 1,2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
There is no comment.
Author Response
The reviewer did not make any comments nor suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This paper reported the regulation effect of Lees, a winery by-product. These data are not enough to support a rigorous conclusion. There are some serious issues on this study. 1. A period of 14 days is too short to reshape the gut microbiota. So the gut microbiota results are not rigorous. 2. SCFAs were not detected. 3. More analysis for the comparison of gut microbiota, such as LEFSe is necessary while some comparison of bacteria abundances is unnecessary.
Author Response
This paper reported the regulation effect of Lees, a winery by-product. These data are not enough to support a rigorous conclusion. There are some serious issues on this study.
- A period of 14 days is too short to reshape the gut microbiota. So the gut microbiota results are not rigorous.
Response: In fact, 14 days is a short period, therefore we reported the data as preliminary results. It was emphasized in the text. Moreover, for toxicity studies the usual is to perform acute toxicity (what we did) and then, chronic toxicity during longer periods of time.
- SCFAs were not detected.
Response: Since stool samples from rats were limited, there was not enough sample to perform the analysis of SCFAs, so the discussion was performed according to the literature.
- More analysis for the comparison of gut microbiota, such as LEFSe is necessary while some comparison of bacteria abundances is unnecessary.
Response: The study presents preliminary results regarding the changes in the intestinal microbiota. We are currently working in a larger study where we will be looking for markers using the LEFSe analysis for the comparison of gut microbiota.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The author evaluated the effect of Cava Lees on the gut microbiota in rats, and results were shown that lees could improve the presence of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and can be re-valorized as a new ingredient in food formulation. I have some concerns about this manuscript.
1. What are the specific components in the Lees?
2. What is the reason for the greater deviation in weight gain? It is recommended to list the initial and final weight data.
3. What are the changes of serum indexes in rats？ such as AST ALT, etc.
Author Response
The author evaluated the effect of Cava Lees on the gut microbiota in rats, and results were shown that lees could improve the presence of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and can be re-valorized as a new ingredient in food formulation. I have some concerns about this manuscript.
- What are the specific components in the Lees?
Response: Lees composition was referenced in the text (lines 54-55).
- What is the reason for the greater deviation in weight gain? It is recommended to list the initial and final weight data.
Response: In a previous review process the reviewers suggested to merge female and male data, which resulted in the greater deviation in weight gain. We added the initial and final weight data in the text (lines 121-125).
- What are the changes of serum indexes in rats？ such as AST ALT, etc.
Response: There were no significant differences in the serum indexes in rats, it was specified in the text as data not shown (lines 142-146).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The data presented by the paper are not enough to support a rigorous conclusion. There are some serious issues on this study.
Author Response
Reviewer: The data presented by the paper are not enough to support a rigorous conclusion. There are some serious issues on this study.
Response: a differential abundance analysis with gneiss was performed and Figure 5 was added to the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
I have no comments now.
Author Response
The reviewer has no comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigated the potential prebiotic effect of cava lees. However, the data are not enough, and the study is lack of novelty. the paper was not organized and prepared well. Detailed comments are as follows:
1. 2.2 Study Design: More information (e.g., age and provider) of Wistar Han rats should be given. Did all the rats have an acclimatization? Have the author followed the animal welfare guidelines throughout the animal experiments?
2. Lines 131-135 ‘hematology, biochemistry, histopathology, necropsy and immunogenicity did not reflect significant differences between the control groups and the mixed trials.’ Where are the above experiment results. I could not find these data. In addition, acute toxicity was not mentioned in the experimental method.
3. The experiment results of 3.1 were present according to sex (male and female), why the following experiment results (e.g., Table 3, Table 4, Figure 2 and Figure 3) was according to group. It is confusing and unreasonable.
4. There was no relevant experiment results of gut microbiota composition at the phylum level. And the discussion (Lines 141-156) is about SCFAs, and it was inconsistent with the results presented in 3.2.
5. Table 4: Are the data present as relative abundance (%)? How could the values be higher than 100? Please check it.
6. There was no statistical analysis in Figure 3 (a) and (b).
7. There are many mistakes in the language and grammar of the manuscript, which need to be improved carefully.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study entitled “Potential Prebiotic Effect of Cava Lees: Changes in Gut Microbiota” examined the prebiotic effects by researching gut microbiota in rats. The topic is interesting. I wonder why the authors did not analyze pathogen microorganisms’ levels (Enterobacteriaceae) in gut microbiota. And, I suggest you can give more detail for Lees diet in the Material method as it’s not clear.
