Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

thanks for sending this manuscript for review. This is an interesting, clearly defined study. I do have a couple of comments/questions though

• line 33: I don't think a claim of growing demand can be supported by a 1995 reference. Need a more recent one
• line 41-43 puzzle me, not clear what you want to say
• line 83-84 can be deleted. This sentence doesn't add anything and only raises the question who considers this an edible seaweed
• section 2.2 I wondered how much seaweed you collected, and if this was from one site of multiple. We've seen before that the composition of seaweeds can vary greatly among sites. How representative are your findings?
• Section 2.3.2 Not clear if you also use the juveniles of a sample of collected seaweed. My problem lies in the difference in growth (first part of results). The differences in composition might be explained by the fact that in some case you use juveniles, and in others not. Please discuss
• Line 131: MENU needs a reference
• line 277: the first line puzzles me. What did you mean to say
• lines 283-285 are not conclusions based on the study - similar statements are made in the introduction and can be deleted here

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comment 1: Thanks for sending this manuscript for review. This is an interesting, clearly defined study.

Answer 1: Firstly, we would like to thank the reviewer for his/her words. They were very valuable in improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Every aspect of the reviewer revision was addressed.

Comment 2: line 33: I don't think a claim of growing demand can be supported by a 1995 reference. Need a more recent one.

Answer 2: We added more recent references, from the last five years.

Comment 3: line 41-43 puzzle me, not clear what you want to say

Answer 3: We have reviewed and redone that part of the text to be more concise and clearer.

Comment 4: line 83-84 can be deleted. This sentence doesn't add anything and only raises the question who considers this an edible seaweed

Answer 4: We thank the reviewer alert we deleted the lines.

Comment 5: section 2.2 I wondered how much seaweed you collected, and if this was from one site of multiple. We've seen before that the composition of seaweeds can vary greatly among sites. How representative are your findings?

Answer 5: It was added information that we consider important to clarify that situation, in that section. We tried to collect the species from the same pool, however we recurred to an adjacent pool that was in the same plan in the rock platform and with identical ecology. We collected 1.125 Kg of the seaweed between juveniles for cultivation and adult specimens to the biochemical profile analysis of the wild species. So the specimens composition tendency is to be identical between specimens collected for all the cultivation assays.

Comment 6: Section 2.3.2 Not clear if you also use the juveniles of a sample of collected seaweed. My problem lies in the difference in growth (first part of results). The differences in composition might be explained by the fact that in some case you use juveniles, and in others not. Please discuss

Answer 6: When we collected the juveniles, we used all similar juveniles for the two types of cultivation, to not have that differential growth problems. In this case the initial composition was identical, however after cultivation the composition difference appear to be due to cultivation. It was added information in the 2.3.2 section and in the first paragraph of discussion to become the information clear.

Comment 7: Line 131: MENU needs a reference

Answer 7: We added the project reference.

Comment 8: line 277: the first line puzzles me. What did you mean to say

Answer 8: We have reviewed and rewrite that part of the text to become clear.

Comment 9: lines 283-285 are not conclusions based on the study - similar statements are made in the introduction and can be deleted here

Answer 9: We deleted that lines from conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper under consideration presents  biochemical characterization of the seaweed C. jubata and comparison of the results at different cultivation locations and conditions. The manuscript could be accepted for publication after some revision:

1-Introduction part:

I have seen other papers which have been investigated this seaweed such as:

-Evidence of Sulfohydrolase Activity in the Red Alga Calliblepharis jubata (Zinoun et al,1997)

-A comparative analysis of phycocolloids produced by underutilized versus industrially utilized carrageenophytes (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) (Pereira et al,2009)

-13C-NMR spectroscopy and chemical analysis of the carrageenans of four red algae (Gigartinales)(Deslandes et al,1990)

Please add them to your manuscript and explain what they have done.

2-Materials and methods part:

Please explain briefly how the extraction and methylation of lipid were performed. Also, please explain briefly how hydrolysis, reduction, and acetylation of carbohydrate were done.

3- Results

• The y-axis title in Figure 3 and 4 should be changed to amount.
• I recommend the determination of ash content in samples since the ash content varies greatly among the locations and conditions.

4- Conclusion

• Analysis and quantification of uronic acids and sulfate should be mentioned for future plan.
• Most of red algae are  good source of proteins, so analysis of the proteins also should be considered in future.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comment 1: The paper under consideration presents biochemical characterization of the seaweed C. jubata and comparison of the results at different cultivation locations and conditions.

Answer 1: We would like to thank the reviewer words. We pleased your feedback. We addressed all the reviewer suggestions.

Comment 2: Introduction part:

I have seen other papers which have been investigated this seaweed such as:

-Evidence of Sulfohydrolase Activity in the Red Alga Calliblepharis jubata (Zinoun et al. 1997)

-A comparative analysis of phycocolloids produced by underutilized versus industrially utilized carrageenophytes (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) (Pereira et al. 2009)

-¹³C-NMR spectroscopy and chemical analysis of the carrageenans of four red algae (Gigartinales) (Deslandes et al.1990)

Please add them to your manuscript and explain what they have done.

Answer 2: We revised the section and added the studies that the reviewer indicated in the introduction section.

Comment 3: Materials and methods part:

Please explain briefly how the extraction and methylation of lipid were performed. Also, please explain briefly how hydrolysis, reduction, and acetylation of carbohydrate were done.

Answer 3: We addressed the question and more information was added in the sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 as requested.

Comment 4: Results

The y-axis title in Figure 3 and 4 should be changed to amount.

I recommend the determination of ash content in samples since the ash content varies greatly among the locations and conditions

Answer 4:  We corrected the y-axis title in Figures 3 and 4.

We know that however with the replicas and with the other assays that we can use, there is low content of biomass to do the ash content by the standard methods in our lab, also with this sort period to review is impossible to do the ash content. The methods that we have we do not extract proteins and other compounds that will interfere the ash content, as the standard methodology and bibliography recommend. In the future, when we develop the protein protocol, we can use the biomass to the ash characterization as some studies in seaweeds demonstrate. We added a sentence in conclusions related to that question.

Comment 5: Conclusion

Analysis and quantification of uronic acids and sulfate should be mentioned for future plan. Most of red algae are good source of proteins, so analysis of the proteins also should be considered in future

Answer 5: We mentioned this topic and we revised the conclusion section and trimmed the information.