Next Article in Journal
Epidemiology and Outcomes of Bloodstream Infections in HIV-Patients during a 13-Year Period
Next Article in Special Issue
Microorganisms Associated with the Marine Sponge Scopalina hapalia: A Reservoir of Bioactive Molecules to Slow Down the Aging Process
Previous Article in Journal
Genomic Analysis of Three Cheese-Borne Pseudomonas lactis with Biofilm and Spoilage-Associated Behavior
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bioactivity of Serratiochelin A, a Siderophore Isolated from a Co-Culture of Serratia sp. and Shewanella sp.
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparative Study of the Proteins Involved in the Fermentation-Derived Compounds in Two Strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during Sparkling Wine Second Fermentation

Microorganisms 2020, 8(8), 1209; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8081209
by María del Carmen González-Jiménez 1, Teresa García-Martínez 1, Juan Carlos Mauricio 1,*, Irene Sánchez-León 1, Anna Puig-Pujol 2, Juan Moreno 1 and Jaime Moreno-García 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Microorganisms 2020, 8(8), 1209; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8081209
Submission received: 13 July 2020 / Revised: 4 August 2020 / Accepted: 6 August 2020 / Published: 8 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Secondary Metabolites and Biotechnology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Investigation of yeasts proteins responsible for the production of fermentation compounds during the second fermentation is of great importance in winemaking industry. In this study, the differences between a flor and conventional Saccharomyces strains were investigated. The results are of great interest and provide new insights regarding the molecular mechanism behind the formation of volatile compounds. Paper is well written and results and discussion are appropriate.

Few suggestions/critical advices are reported below:

-provide a Graph with the CO2 pressure evolution during second fermentation.

-provide a Table with the chemical composition of the wines at the end of the monitored period.

Author Response

We appreciated very much the reviewer´ comments.

A file is attached and all the changes made in the original manuscript can be seen in the revised version (it has been saved in blue).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting but needs an extensive editing of English language and style. In this form, it is harsh to understand and it is not readably.

Moreover, I have some doubt regarding the use of only two strains.

Author Response

We appreciated very much the reviewer´ comments.

A file is attached.

All the changes made in the original manuscript can be seen in the revised version (it has been saved in blue).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

OK

Back to TopTop