Next Article in Journal
Enhanced Carbon Dioxide Decomposition Using Activated SrFeO3−δ
Previous Article in Journal
A Discussion on the Unique Features of Electrochemical Promotion of Catalysis (EPOC): Are We in the Right Path Towards Commercial Implementation?
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Rhizopus oryzae Lipase, a Promising Industrial Enzyme: Biochemical Characteristics, Production and Biocatalytic Applications

Catalysts 2020, 10(11), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10111277
by Josu López-Fernández, M. Dolors Benaiges and Francisco Valero *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Catalysts 2020, 10(11), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10111277
Submission received: 13 October 2020 / Revised: 28 October 2020 / Accepted: 30 October 2020 / Published: 3 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Biocatalysis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a nice review, which would be very useful to interested readership. I have found some marginal points, which however if amended could further improved the quality i=of the manuscript:

L 102 “pyruvate deScarboxylases”. Please delete that S

L 146 “… are cleavage…”. Please change into “are cleaved”.

L 169 It is nowadays generally recommended the change of sulphur (and deriving words such as disulphide) into sulfur and related counterparts.

Table 2 For coherence with the other entries, pH optima and T optima should be changed into pH optimum and T optimum, respectively.

L 262 for the convenience of readership, please specify the exact structure of homotriacylgycerols: in particular, the exact position of the extra carbon atom should be indicated

L 421-423 The sentence is not clear. Please revise/explain.

Figure 7 Poor resolution. Please check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have conducted a thorough literature review and produced a very good informative article about Rhizopus oryzae lipase. The paper itself is well written, evidence-based and well designed, although sometimes descriptive. However, in my opinion, review articles need to go beyond mere description and ‘state-of-the-literature’ summaries and authors should also offer new insight into understanding by addressing new questions and stimulate further empirical work. I believe that authors should contribute with new innovative questions and introduce some recommendations for future works that will allow move beyond the current knowledge.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop