Encapsulation of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG: Probiotic Survival, In Vitro Digestion and Viability in Apple Juice and Yogurt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors describe the encapsulation of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG - probiotic  survival, in vitro digestion and viability in apple juice and  yoghurt.

I think it's a very interesting and very important topic for food functionality and technology nowadays.

Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG inhibits the growth of most harmful bacteria in the gut. Since its discovery in 1983, the strain has been very thoroughly studied for its health benefits.  It may be helpful in the treatment of obesity as it leads to weight loss by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing fat accumulation.

Encapsulation is a technique used to protect and preserve  probiotic bacteria during storage and the digestion process. The addition of encapsulated probiotic strains to a food matrix increase their viability.

Authors describe the preparation and characterize capsules loaded with Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG and  evaluate the cell viability under gastrointestinal in vitro conditions and during storage in two food matrices (apple juice and yoghurt).

The research is well performed, the sampling and analysis were well done. The manuscript is also well written and easy to understand by readers. Results and Discussion were well explained. In my opinion the manuscript is interesting and could be useful for wide range of readers.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments and observations on this study which help and encourage us to do a better job for better research and science.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript addresses the encapsulation of LGG and some applications of the encapsulated bacteria. It is an interesting read, and it fits within both the scope of the Journal and the Special Issue. It can be accepted for publication following the minor modifications as follows:

1) Please pick the most appropriate micrographs. Sometimes less is more, and one can get overwhelmed by the number of micrographs, that often do not have a clear relationship to the findings. You can move the least impactful as supplementary material.

2) I felt the need for a more critical discussion on your results. Besides comparing with other studies, can you explain the actual importance of such observations? For instance, between lines 242-250: how does that relate to the applicability of the LGG capsules of your study? Please take this as an example that can be expanded to most sections of the study.

 

Author Response

We thank you for your comments and observations on this study which help and encourage us to do a better job for better research and science.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well planed and written. However, some changes are suggested. Authors must demonstrate more the novelty of their study. In addition, they should confront the results with recent work 10.3390/foods10091999

Some minor issues:

1. Line 58 - emulsification instead of emulsion
2. Lines 53-59 - please add references
3. Please present 2 decimal places in tables
4. The method for determining the viability of L. rhamnosus in products should be made more specific. Were the capsules washed/cleaned prior to analysis? How was it ensured that only the encapsulated bacterial cells were assayed and not other lactic acid bacteria from the yogurt?
5. Please provide pH values of yogurt and juice.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments and observations on this study which help and encourage us to do a better job for better research and science.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx