Molecular Characterization of the Gorgonzola Cheese Mycobiota and Selection of a Putative Probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii for Evaluation as a Veterinary Feed Additive

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have completed my review of the manuscript titled "Molecular Characterization of Mycobiota in Gorgonzola Cheese: Identification of Potential Probiotic Strains for Veterinary Feed Additive Use." My assessment focused on the relevance and sufficiency of the background information, the appropriateness of the cited references and research design, the clarity and accuracy of the methods and results, and the strength of the conclusions. Additionally, I evaluated the manuscript's originality, significance, presentation quality, scientific soundness, interest to readers, and overall merit.

The introduction provides a good foundation for the study but could be enhanced by discussing the significance of probiotics in veterinary feed more comprehensively. The cited references are well-chosen and relevant, supporting the study's objectives and methodologies effectively.

The research design is appropriate and well-executed, contributing significantly to the field's body of knowledge.

However, the methods section, while detailed, could benefit from further explanation of the statistical analyses. This would improve the manuscript's scientific rigor. For example, the statistical analyses, lacks detail, which may affect the reproducibility of the study. Expanding on this section will strengthen the scientific rigor of the manuscript.

The results are clearly presented and well-supported by the data, but the conclusions occasionally overstate the findings' significance or make assumptions not fully supported by the results. A more measured interpretation of the data would enhance the manuscript's credibility. For example, while the conclusions highlight the potential of S. cerevisiae var. boulardii, they extend somewhat beyond the presented data, particularly regarding its application in treating inflammatory conditions. The manuscript should more closely tie the conclusions to the specific results obtained.

Throughout the manuscript, there are instances of minor grammatical mistakes, including punctuation errors, incorrect verb tenses, and awkward phrasing that could hinder readability and clarity. These issues are not isolated to specific sentences but are scattered throughout the document, suggesting a comprehensive proofreading by a native speaker is required.

Minor issues:

The manuscript occasionally uses different terms interchangeably without clear distinction or definition. For example, the terms "probiotic" and "probiotic strains" are used in various contexts that may confuse readers about their specific meanings in the context of the study.

I recommend that the manuscript be considered for publication after addressing the mentioned areas for improvement. Enhancements to the clarity of the conclusions and further detail in the methods section will ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's high standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I believe that, with the suggested revisions, it will make a significant contribution to the field of food microbiology and probiotics.

Throughout the manuscript, there are instances of minor grammatical mistakes, including punctuation errors, incorrect verb tenses, and awkward phrasing that could hinder readability and clarity. These issues are not isolated to specific sentences but are scattered throughout the document, suggesting a comprehensive proofreading by a native speaker is required.

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is devoted to the search for new strains of probiotics and their use in feed. The article has scientific and practical significance, but there are a number of comments on the article: Line 173, the formula is not clear, needs to be replaced. Also, all formulas must be numbered. In the introduction, the authors talk about the food sector, and at the end they touch on the field of veterinary medicine and consider the use of probiotics in feed. The authors should clearly outline the transition from food to feed and if the purpose of research is the use of probiotics in feed, then it is necessary to review this area, since there are numerous studies in this area, including the use of new strains of probiotic bacilli for targeted use; Source references (line 158, 159) should be moved to References A description of why only one type of yeast was chosen is provided in the discussions only. This information must be briefly outlined in materials and methods, since it is not clear why only one was chosen from the entire list of deposited strains (Table 1). It is also necessary to justify why exactly 2 grams of potential probiotics were added? On what basis was this choice made? Why was this food chosen for research? (Monge Monasterolo di Savigliano, Italy). Is the food dry or wet? You must specify. At what stage of feed production is it planned to introduce a potential probiotic if the strains cannot withstand temperatures above 37 degrees? Lines 257-258: it is necessary to indicate what are the expiration dates for other strains used in feed? After changes are made, the article can be published in the journal.

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf