Modulation of Stress-Related Protein in the African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus) Using Bacillus-Based Non-Ribosomal Peptides

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript mainly focused on the the results of molecular docking and dynamics  reveal multiple bindings between proteins and ligands, forming stable complexes, which may explain the mechanisms of action of probiotics. But there are several problems as follows.

1. The induction was mainly focused on the application of probiotics on animals, which seemed no much relation with the content of the manuscript. 

2. L 55 wrong tense.

3. The format of the whole manuscript was not the same, please check.

4. The description of the methods was too simple, please give more details.

5. Fig.10-13 was not very clear, please improve the clarity.

6. The conclusion was too long. Please  refine.

 

Author Response

Comment 1. The induction was mainly focused on the application of probiotics on animals, which seemed no much relation with the content of the manuscript. 

Response:

We assume that the reviewer was referring to the “introduction” section. We have substantially rewritten this section, reducing the paragraphs that deal with general aspects of probiotic use in animals and leaving only those that deal with the subject under consideration – the catfish, and expanding the part that deals with metabolites

Comment 2. L 55 wrong tense. 

Response: Since we rewrote the introduction, we hope the sentence with that error is now gone.

Comment 3. The format of the whole manuscript was not the same, please check.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out! We unified the formatting.

Comment 4. The description of the methods was too simple, please give more details.

Response:

We have expanded the description of the methods and added 9 new literature sources that reveal the use of these methods. See highlighted in yellow.

Comment 5. Fig.10-13 was not very clear, please improve the clarity.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have divided and enlarged these figures. We would also like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that the figures were attached separately in high-quality files when the article was submitted. We hope that in the final online version they will be available for readers.

Comment 6. The conclusion was too long. Please refine.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have shortened the conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A good structured article about the benefits of probiotics in agriculture, or more precisely in aquaculture. The mechanisms of action of probiotics at the molecular level are revealed. Indeed, many studies prove that the inclusion of probiotics in the feed of commercial fish increases growth and has a positive effect on immunity (we also have such works) immunity. The work is good, easy to read despite the complexity of the topic of stress proteins, such as catalase, cytochrome P450, HSP70, metallothionein 1 and superoxide dismutase. The methods of their interaction with bioactive non-ribosomal peptides of Bacillus subtilis R5 are acceptable. In the text of the article, the authors for some reason switch to a larger interval between lines after materials and methods. These are issues of design, not content. I think the authors can easily fix this. I would also like to know from the editor the percentage of uniqueness of the work. Otherwise, the article is excellent - I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1. In the text of the article, the authors for some reason switch to a larger interval between lines after materials and methods.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out! We unified the formatting.

Comment 2: I would also like to know from the editor the percentage of uniqueness of the work.

Response: We do not have access to this information from the editor, but the check in the anti-plagiarism system of one of our universities showed 95% originality, excluding from the comparison the text of the dissertation of Mr. Neurov (the first author of the article), which partially includes data from this work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for reply. I noticed that the authors have modified the manuscript according. There is still a little problem for the format of Table 1. Also, the conclusion should be more concise. 

Author Response

Comment 1. There is still a little problem for the format of Table 1.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out! What exactly is wrong?
Comment 2. the conclusion should be more concise. 
Response: Thank you for pointing this out! We remade the conclusion.