Changes in Gel Structure and Chemical Interactions of Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Surimi Gels: Effect of Setting Process and Different Starch Addition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript authored by Xin Jiang et al. explored the potentiality of including starch addition in surimi gels.  The manuscript is well-written and the experimental design is perfectly accurate.  

I just have minor suggestions:

-I suggest authors better emphasize in the introduction which are the beneficial properties of surimi fish. 

-line 33 which are the added values of Silver carp addition? please include more details in the text

-Better discuss in the discussion section which advantage this innovation could bring to the market? economical? food quality? marine safety?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The experimental work and results are well done, but in some places, the description of the  results and the interpretation must be improved. 

Please correct  Table numbers in text – they are incorrect – example Line 258 – Table 2 NOT Table 3

Line 72 spelling of Sliver – change to Silver

Line 86 – how much iced water was added?  Was this the same for all samples?

Line 97 –  add:   … Meiboom - Gill  PULSE SEQUENCE …

Line 197 – add ‘respectively’: the maximum at 6% and 9% starch content, respectively

Line 198 – the authors state  “and a reduction in surimi content.” – how is surimi content reduce?? Please clarify.

LIne 217- 218:  the authors state  “It was observed that a nearly spherical morphology of starch was shown in SCG, whereas the relatively irregular  state in CG.”

I see differences as starch content increases but cannot see the differences between CG and SCG

LIne 224-225:  The authors state “ It might contribute to the setting step, in which microbial transglutaminase activated the cross-linking of the myosin heavy chain and triggered the mediation of protein aggregation [30].”

How does this relate to the results?  No transglutaminase was used

Line 233 – Is this for SCG??:  Meanwhile, FOR SCG?? no significant changes were observed, and smooth structures were shown throughout the addition of starch.

Section 3.2.2. – I am unable to see the effects described in this section by the micrographs shown in Fig 4.  I cannot see striations inside the granules.

The micrographs show  more granule swelling in SCG samples compared to the CG samples

TABLE 2  and 3:   Rather than doing two different  one-way anovas, the authors should do one two-way anova.  They are obviously interested in comparing both heating protocol and starch content, but ALSO, they are interested in the interaction.

Line 258 - 259 – “The non-specific associations had significant increases in both CG and SCG (p < 0.05) WITH INCREASES IN STARCH ??? which resulted from the cross- linking of low molecular proteins with gel [32].”

If proteins are cross-linking, this is not  a non-specific association.  Cross-linking infers a chemical bond

Line 264 “ Furthermore, hydrogen bonds were also the most crucial forces in determining the immobile water of surimi gels.”

 Water is only capable of hydrogen bonds so this line is nonsensical

Line 274- 280 – this section is unclear and confusing in describing the data given in Table 2

Line 291 - Subsequently, the cross-linking of -SH occurred followed by the formation of more disulfide bonds [36].:  The authors need to relate this to the results from Section 3.4.3. 

Caption Table 3 – matrices not matriced

LIne 376 – 377 This needs to be rewritten clearly:  “Namely, potato starch filling could ameliorate the non-dense structure”??? , instead of a compact structure.  Therefore, starch supported vulnerable?? surimi gels and made a difference to the structural variations among different heating processes.”

LIne 392 If the lightness values are not different, then are the ‘a’ an ‘b’ value differences significant??

“Thus, various heating processes might lead to the diversity of a* and b* value instead of L* value.”

Line 401 “As shown in Table 6, the gel matrix presented a significant  DECREASE?? in centrifugal” 

LIne 435 436 –“ However, adding excessive starch destroyed the integrity of the surimi gel, and decreased the cohesiveness and resilience.”  This is not true for CG samples, according to Table 4.  Can the authors  comment on how  CG was still lower for cohensiveness and resilience than SCG even at the highest start content.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The quality of presented results must be improved, especially figures 1 and 4. The reference in the text must be corrected (Tables and Figures).

Please correct some grammatical errors in the text (line 277: rose to rising).

The textural properties as „hardness“ and „chewiness“ are better present as a force unit [N].

My suggestion is to delete Figure 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all of my comments related to the manuscript adequately.  There are some minor grammatical changes that can be made by the journal editors, but the statements are understandable.    I have no further concerns.