Characterisation of Seasonal Mytilus edulis By-Products and Generation of Bioactive Hydrolysates
Adrian Cummins
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, authors (Naik et al.) demonstrated that mussel by-product hydrolysates exert various beneficial biological effects, thus have potential use as functional ingredients. The authors did a lot of work for this study and data presented are sound. However, the manuscript is too distracting and hard to keep up with as it is. The reviewer provides following comments for improvement of the manuscript.
Comments:
- Abstract and introduction are too long and unfocused, thus need to be compact, highlighting what you want to emphasize.
- Results are mixed with discussions. Just leave the sentences describing the result of each experiment in this section, and move those other sentences to the discussion section.
- Figures look sloppy and are confusing because of unclassified sample sequence as well as non-uniform abbreviation, style and size. The quality of figures needs to be improved with a bit of sophistication and to be understood at a glance.
Specifically, it is hard to follow the difference of the findings in most figures, because the order of samples presented is mixed up and the abbreviations of them are not uniform (e.g. KHN18 in Fig. 1, Killary harbor 18 Nov in Fig. 3; Use abbreviation of all the months consistently, e.g. N and July to Nov and July or N and J; Use abbreviation of all the types of by-products consistently, e.g. H for hydroxylate, then M for meat). For readers’ better understanding, the samples should be presented by sorting the areas harvesting the first, the months of those areas next, and then types of the by-products. I could not get the authors’ intention regarding the order in presenting data. Also, figure legends should use a consistent format throughout the manuscript and often do not contain information about abbreviations used in graphs. In addition, statistical analysis should be performed, and the statistical significance is marked on graphs with a probability value in figure legends.
- The contents of discussion appear to be inappropriate in the Discussion section, but rather be included in the Summary section. The contents of discussion are insufficient and need to be supplemented. Discussion about the meaningful parts of the obtained results should be covered comparing to other existing products. In addition, the contents including an emphasis on the importance and future application of the authors’ findings, especially inhibitory actions of mussel by-product hydrolysates on DPP-IV and ACE, might further enhance the value of this manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
- Abstract and introduction are too long and unfocused, thus need to be compact, highlighting what you want to emphasize.
Answer 1.1 : The abstract and introduction have been edited where possible and the word count is reduced to emphasize the main findings and background of the work.
- Results are mixed with discussions. Just leave the sentences describing the result of each experiment in this section, and move those other sentences to the discussion section.
Answer 1.2 : The results & discussion have been combined together to make a more effective inference of the findings in line with suggestions made by more than one reviewer.
- Figures look sloppy and are confusing because of unclassified sample sequence as well as non-uniform abbreviation, style and size. The quality of figures needs to be improved with a bit of sophistication and to be understood at a glance.
(Specifically, it is hard to follow the difference of the findings in most figures, because the order of samples presented is mixed up and the abbreviations of them are not uniform (e.g. KHN18 in Fig. 1, Killary harbor 18 Nov in Fig. 3; Use abbreviation of all the months consistently, e.g. N and July to Nov and July or N and J; Use abbreviation of all the types of by-products consistently, e.g. H for hydroxylate, then M for meat). For readers’ better understanding, the samples should be presented by sorting the areas harvesting the first, the months of those areas next, and then types of the by-products. I could not get the authors’ intention regarding the order in presenting data. Also, figure legends should use a consistent format throughout the manuscript and often do not contain information about abbreviations used in graphs. In addition, statistical analysis should be performed, and the statistical significance is marked on graphs with a probability value in figure legends.)
Answer 1.3 : Abbreviations and figure legends have been edited as suggested by the reviewer to have uniformity and be self-explanatory. The error bars have been added to the graphs along with statistical significance where appropriate. Also some figures do not fit properly in the template, and can be provided separately for a better reading experience.
- The contents of discussion appear to be inappropriate in the Discussion section, but rather be included in the Summary section. The contents of discussion are insufficient and need to be supplemented. Discussion about the meaningful parts of the obtained results should be covered comparing to other existing products. In addition, the contents including an emphasis on the importance and future application of the authors’ findings, especially inhibitory actions of mussel by-product hydrolysates on DPP-IV and ACE, might further enhance the value of this manuscript.
Answer 1.4 : Discussion has been converted to summary and results & discussion combined and supplemented further with references as suggested by the reviewer. The summary also contains future scope of the conducted work, which is planned by our research group.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes a study or series of studies that attempt to characterize protein and lipid hydrolysates of the cultured blue mussel discards with application to the human medicine. The sampling protocol and the methods seem sound however this reviewer feels that the presentation of the results is severely lacking. In Figure 1 the authors use the abbreviation "H" but give no obvious definition and mention letters related to statistical significance but do not show them in the figure. Additionally what are the values above each bar in the figure. Are they mean values? if so then they need to be stated as such. Through out the results section the authors present data in the form of a discussion including references. This is very poor style, in fact the discussion section does a better job of stating results then the results section does. I would suggest that the authors rewrite the results and discussion as one section. Figure 2 is also very confusing and poorly designed. I have not checked the references and would recommend the authors do a complete rewrite of the manuscript including analysis before deciding to resubmit to another journal.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
- This paper describes a study or series of studies that attempt to characterize protein and lipid hydrolysates of the cultured blue mussel discards with application to the human medicine. The sampling protocol and the methods seem sound however this reviewer feels that the presentation of the results is severely lacking.
- In Figure 1 the authors use the abbreviation "H" but give no obvious definition and mention letters related to statistical significance but do not show them in the figure.
Answer 1.1 : ‘H stands’ for hydrolysate and has been added to the figure legends as suggested. The statistical significance has also been added where appropriate.
- Additionally what are the values above each bar in the figure. Are they mean values? if so then they need to be stated as such.
Answer 1.2 : Where not required, the average values have been removed, and where present have been supplemented with footnote.
- Through out the results section the authors present data in the form of a discussion including references. This is very poor style, in fact the discussion section does a better job of stating results then the results section does. I would suggest that the authors rewrite the results and discussion as one section.
Answer1.3 : The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion and the results & discussion sections have been combined for a better reading experience.
- Figure 2 is also very confusing and poorly designed.
Answer1.4 : The figure has been edited, the average values have been removed from the bar chart to make it less confusing.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I really can't fault the manuscript. I am not familiar with this area, yet I could follow the study quite well. I want to congratulate the authors on a well written manuscript.
Minor comment:
1) Can the authors review the Bibliography for uniformity of style eg some publications are abbreviated and others are full length.
2) Some Figures had very tiny font size. Either enlarge or leave out entirely and give a more general label.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Minor comment:
- Can the authors review the Bibliography for uniformity of style eg some publications are abbreviated and others are full length.
Answer 3.1 : The bibliography has been reviewed and the style (full length) has been made uniform as suggested by the reviewer.
- Some Figures had very tiny font size. Either enlarge or leave out entirely and give a more general label.
Answer 3.2 : The fonts have been enlarged in the figures as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
