Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was delighted to read the manuscript assessing the potential use of two yeast strains, isolated from the natural environment, for the fermentation of a sweet and rich dough such as Kougleof.
Obtaining new strains from the environment is a difficult but often rewarding opportunity to acquire genetically fresh yeast strains with high technological utility. 

The composition of yeast-leavened dough poses a challenge for baker’s yeast due to its high osmotic pressure and fat content. I therefore appreciate the contribution of the results described here to the state of the art in this field. The article is written in correct English. The structure of the content is sound, and the bibliography is appropriate and well-suited to the scope of the introduction and discussion of the results.

In the methodology section and the description of the results, I have identified areas for improvement:
1. In lines 117–118 and Table 1, the form and quantity of yeast added to the dough are described; however, it is difficult to deduce from this what form the yeast took and whether the quantity in grams added to the dough corresponded to the dry weight of the yeast, or was it wet yeast biomass added without specifying its dry matter content?
I would ask the authors to clarify this. It is important because it is difficult to analyse the results without knowing exactly how much yeast was actually used

In line 138, the authors mention the ‘finger’ test – I would ask the authors to provide relevant literature or a more detailed description of the test, enabling the results to be reliably replicated

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to assess the practical baking performance of two wild Saccharomyces cerevisiaestrains (9-3 and 102), isolated from plant leaves, in a high-sugar, high-fat enriched dough system, using Kouglof cake as a model. The central research question was whether these wild, sugar-tolerant yeasts can maintain their fermentation advantages in a real baking system and produce final product quality—considering fermentation properties, texture, microstructure, and sensory acceptance—that is comparable or superior to that achieved with commercial baker’s yeast. The work addresses the limited diversity of commercial yeast strains and their potential suboptimal performance in rich dough applications.​

The experimental design is sound and the study is well executed. The following points could, however, strengthen the manuscript:

Sensory evaluation​

The use of an untrained consumer panel (n = 19) is suitable for assessing overall acceptability but may lack the sensitivity to detect subtle differences in flavour, aroma, and texture between samples. This could partly explain the absence of significant sensory differences reported. It is suggested that this limitation be explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion. Future work could employ a trained descriptive panel to profile specific sensory attributes more precisely. Additionally, instrumental texture analysis data should be included to complement the sensory findings.

Fermentation endpoint determination​

Using dough expansion (e.g., fermentation to half the mould height) rather than a fixed time to determine the fermentation endpoint is a robust approach for comparing strain performance. However, the longer fermentation time required by the wild yeasts is itself a relevant performance trait and may also influence flavour development. The authors are encouraged to briefly discuss the implications of fermentation time variation for production efficiency and potential flavour formation.

Volatile flavour analysis​

The manuscript notes (lines 470–476) that ingredients such as butter may mask yeast-derived volatiles and suggests future gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GCMS) analysis. This is an important point. It is recommended that the Conclusion or Future Perspectives section explicitly highlight the need for volatile compound profiling to clarify the flavour contribution of strain 102, even if its sensory scores did not significantly differ from the control.

Nutritional composition​

Beyond texture and flavour, nutritional quality is an important aspect of food products. Where feasible, basic nutritional composition (e.g., protein, fat, dietary fibre) could be analysed to provide a more comprehensive product characterisation.

Formatting​

Minor formatting inconsistencies are present (e.g., lines 127 and 188). A careful proofread to unify style and layout is recommended.

Conclusion​

The conclusions are well supported by the data. The results demonstrate that strain 102 exhibits high fermentative capacity, efficient sugar utilisation, a finer crumb structure, lower mechanical hardness, and good sensory acceptability in enriched Kouglof, as evidenced by fermentation tests, compositional analyses, texture measurements, image analyses, and sensory evaluation. The cautious note regarding the lack of significant sensory differences is appropriately stated.

This is a robust and systematically conducted study that provides convincing evidence for the potential of wild yeast strain 102 to replace commercial yeast in rich dough systems. The manuscript is clearly written, logically organised, and the discussion is insightful. With attention to the points raised above—particularly clarifying methodological details, deepening the discussion on flavour analysis, and refining table/figure presentations—the paper will be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf