Enzymatic Glycosylation Strategies in the Production of Bioactive Compounds
, Clara Ortega-Nieto 1, Cesar Mateo 1,*, Dejan Bezbradica 2,* and Jose M. Palomo 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Enzymatic glycosylation strategies in the production of bioactive compounds” was submitted for its publication in Catalyst. In this work, the authors review the application of different enzymes to the preparation of biologically active glycosylated compounds. The paper compiles a lot of information on the subject and offers an overview of the characteristics of the enzymes and the advantages of their application to the pharmaceutical industry compared to traditional methodologies. In this context, some examples of synthesis of glycoderivatives, including mono- and oligosaccharides, are described. Therefore, I recommend its publication in this journal.
However, some comments should be considered to improve the manuscript
General comments
1. References:
a. They are referenced throughout the text in various ways (normal or superscript, after or before punctuation, first or last author).
b. In Reference section, reference 33 and from 63 to 87 the format is different.
c. 68 and 75 are the same.
2. The use of italics in the name of the species should be controlled.
3. When classifying enzymes, it would be convenient to relate them to the CAZy database.
Abstract
Page 1, line 19 “ …. to improve the synthesization in the glycosylation process could be a very useful tool …. “
I recommend replacing it with “…. to improve the glycosylation process could be a very useful tool ….”
Enzymatic Glycosylation of phenolic compounds
1. Sections 2.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 titles: the plural in the name of enzymes would be appropriate
2. Page 4 line 138: Co2+ must be replace by Co2+
3. Page 6 line 230: O-α-D-… instead of O-α-d-…
4. Page 6 Figure 3: the meaning of the letter a below the arrow is not defined.
5. Section 2.1.3: since C-glycosyltransferases are Leloir-glycosyltransferases, shouldn't they be included in section 2.1.2?
6. Page 7 line 274: is 6 missing in GtCGT?
7. Page 8 line 297: “….to the phenolic residue through the aliphatic chain….” From my point of view, it would be clearer to refer to aliphatic hydroxyl and not to aliphatic chain.
8. Section 2.2.1. Since this item is included in Glycosidases section (2.2), are you sure that all the microbial glycosylations reported here are performed by glycosidases and not glycosyltransferases?
Enzymatic glycosylation of other alcohols
1. Page 10 Figure 6: the names of the compounds and the enzyme are incomplete and there is a + sign in the wrong place.
2. Page 11 line 443: Glycan phosphorylases are non-Leloir GT since they do not use NDP-gly as phosphate donors. According to the cited references (49-53), glycan phosphorylases can be hydrolases or non-Leloir GT.
3. Page 12. Figure 9: The anomeric phosphate in the scheme of α-D-Glc-1-P is missing.
Enzymatic synthetic glycosylation of oligosaccharides
1. Page13 line 495. The first author in reference 68 is C. Li
2. Since references 68 and 75 are the same, between line 544 on page 14 and line 594 on page 15 there is repeated information.
3. Page 14 line 558: ..β-D-… instead of …β-d-…
4. Page 15 line 568: products 1a-1e and 2a-2e are not shown in Figure 14
5. Page 15 lines 595-603. The paragraph is confusing. On line 596 it says ..."application if this enzyme".. and on line 598 they refer to…” three different mutants..”. Additionally, on line 597 the third donor name is incomplete.
6. Page 16 line 615: a-galactosyl must be changed by α-galactosyl
7. Page 16 line 624: is GT synthase, BT synthase?
8. Page 17 line 675 and Page 18 line 677: The α anomer of fucosyl floride is missing.
9. Page 18 Figures 17 and 18. They are both adapted from reference 88 instead of 89
10. Page 18 Figure 17: the enzymes in the last two reactions are missing.
11. Page 18 Figure 18: the meaning of i) below the arrow is not defined
12. Page 19 line 698: reference 88 instead of 89
13. Page 19 line 723: the name of the enzyme after Bacillus circulans (ChiA?) is missing
14. Page 20 lines 757-759: “After 18 h, precipitate yields of 22 to 68% were obtained, with DP10 as the major product and getting the best results for Y154W/D149A/D151A and Y28A/D149A/D151A.” The sentence as written is confusing. It should be reformulated.
Author Response
References have been revised, correctly named and presented in the whole document
Italics in species have been used as referee suggested
Enzymes were related to CAZy database as referee suggested
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find my comments below:
· You can see that each part of the article was written by a different person. I think that, especially in terms of language, it should be unified. Also the style of drawings needs to be unified.
· The Latin names of microorganisms, plants and animals are written in italics. Please correct the manuscript.
· Please standardize the method of notation of ion charges.
· I believe that the publication should include result tables developed on the basis of the discussed articles.
Author Response
All modifications suggested by the referee have been included in the new revised version. New additional tables have been included, italics have been used in latin names, method of notation of ion charges has been standardized, and figures have been modified
Reviewer 3 Report
The review by Jose M. Palomo needs to be rewritten completely. While reading the article, I did not get the feel for a review. A detailed and critical evaluation of the topic is missing. Following points should be considered during the revision.
1. Justify the need for writing this review through a figure or scheme in the introduction. Clearly state in the introduction about the objectives for writing this article.
2. Please cite the text book by Kurt Faber and discuss a few lines about basics of tranferases.
3. The chemdraw figures should look clearly visible and do maintain similar parameters while drawing the figures.
4. Add 3-4 tables in different sections of the article.
5. Add a future prospect section. It should contain author’s opinion about the research topic.
6. Redraw fig 16, 17 and 18 to increase resolution and make it look professional.
7. Abstract and conclusions are written in a lousy manner. Specifically mention the important findings in abstract and introduction. Add key results in numerical forms.
8. Maintain a continuous flow throughout the article. This will make the article appealing.
Based on my evaluation, I am recommending it for a major revision.
Minor English editing is necessary.
Author Response
Paper has been modified as referee suggested. Rewritten the document, adding new additional tables during the manuscript, and a new figure in the introduction as referee suggested.
New paragraph about transferases has been included as referee suggested. Additional references have been included.Figures have been improved as referee suggested.
A future prospect has been included in the new revised version of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Minor editing is required.
