Peptidomics Profile, Bioactive Peptides Identification and Biological Activities of Six Different Cheese Varieties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEWER COMMENTS

The title of the manuscript is ”Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and biological activities of different Egyptian cheeses”. The topic of the manuscript is among the popular topics of today. Research is needed on this subject. Cheese is important for this. The study was well-designed, the text clear and easy to read.

I have some comments to the authors as follows:

1.      The manuscript title should be revised. Because the origin of Gouda and Edam cheeses are Netherlands, and other parts of the manuscript.

2.      “Table 1. Main manufacturing conditions and characteristics of the different cheese varieties from Egypt analysed in this study” Table 1 title should be revised. This is not suitable.

3.      Some standard abbreviations should be made (eg grams, g; vitamin B12 -vitamin B_12; Egyptian-Egypt etc.) and others.

4.      L 119-123:  and other (full manuscript) bacteria, microorganisms names should be italic. 

5.      L 299: Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC)

     Table 2: n? and sd?

6.      For these cheeses; the raw material milk, the production process and the impact of fresh and/or ripening should be considered overall, at the end of the discussion.

7.      Please revise the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer#1

The title of the manuscript is ”Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and biological activities of different Egyptian cheeses”. The topic of the manuscript is among the popular topics of today. Research is needed on this subject. Cheese is important for this. The study was well-designed, the text clear and easy to read.

I have some comments to the authors as follows:

1. The manuscript title should be revised. Because the origin of Gouda and Edam cheeses are Netherlands, and other parts of the manuscript.

Reply: Title was modified accordingly to the reviewer’s comment (see revised title). The same modification has been accordingly done throughout the entire manuscript.

2. “Table 1. Main manufacturing conditions and characteristics of the different cheese varieties from Egypt analysed in this study” Table 1 title should be revised. This is not suitable.

Reply: Table 1 title was modified accordingly to the reviewer’s comment. See revised Table 1.

3. Some standard abbreviations should be made (eg grams, g; vitamin B12 -vitamin B_12; Egyptian-Egypt etc.) and others.

Reply: According to the reviewer’s comment, when appropriate, the terms have been abbreviated.

4. L 119-123:  and other (full manuscript) bacteria, microorganisms names should be italic. 

Reply: Done. See lines 124-128 page 3 of the revised manuscript.

5. L 299: Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC)

Reply: Done. See lines 304-305 page 7 of the revised manuscript

     Table 2: n? and sd?

Reply: We apologize for the missing information. The standard deviation and number of replicates have been added to the revised Table 2.

5. For these cheeses; the raw material milk, the production process and the impact of fresh and/or ripening should be considered overall, at the end of the discussion.

Reply: In our opinion the impact of the technological processes on the different properties of the analysed cheeses is already discussed in the manuscript. In lines 336-353 pages 7 and 8 we discussed the impact of the technological processes on the chemical composition and low molecular weight peptide concentration. In lines 397-398 page we discussed the possible relationship between antioxidant activity and the technological processes. In lines 441-442 and lines 450-451 page 10 we highlighted the missing relationship between the technological processes and the ACE- and DPP-IV-inhibitory activities. Finally, we added a sentence in lines 496-497 page 11 of the revised manuscript to underline the impact of the technological processes on the peptide profile of the different cheeses.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and biological activities of different Egyptian cheeses” is a well-written paper that will contribute to the current literature. In this paper, the authors identified the bioactive peptides from 6 Egyptian cheeses including Karish, feta-type, Domiati, Ras, Gouda and Edam. In addition, biological activities such as antioxidant activity and inhibitory activity against α-amylase, α-glucosidase angiotensin converting enzyme and dipeptidyl-peptidase IV were determined. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in “Biology” after the minor amendments given below:

- Line 19-20: “… should be enough to exert in vivo anti-hypertensive activity”. As this manuscript only dealt with in vitro biological activities, it is a bit speculative to assume that the findings also reflect “in vivo” situation. Therefore, I suggest authors to remove “in vivo” expression throughout the manuscript.

- Please remove the footnotes from Table 2 as this table does not contain these abbreviations.

- Figures: Generally, in statistics letter “a” is assigned to the highest value and the other letters follow it in the sequential order. In this respect it is quite difficult to understand the designation of letters in Fig 2C and 2D. Please check this issue.

- Lines 365-398: The differences observed between the two antioxidant activity assays could be related to the fact that FRAP assay only measures hydrophilic antioxidants, whereas with ABTS assay both hydrophilic and lyophilic antioxidants are measured. In addition, FRAP assay works in acidic condition, in which antioxidants dissociate poorly resulting in underestimation of the result. I suggest authors to discuss these issues in then manuscript. You may refer to the following publication or any other relevant: doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78160-6_22

- In addition to the above, there are a few typographical errors throughout the manuscript. E.g., line 131: “examinate” should be revised as “examined”; line 614: “5” should be “6”. Please check the entire manuscript carefully in order to minimize such errors.

Author Response

Reviewer#2

The manuscript entitled “Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and biological activities of different Egyptian cheeses” is a well-written paper that will contribute to the current literature. In this paper, the authors identified the bioactive peptides from 6 Egyptian cheeses including Karish, feta-type, Domiati, Ras, Gouda and Edam. In addition, biological activities such as antioxidant activity and inhibitory activity against α-amylase, α-glucosidase angiotensin converting enzyme and dipeptidyl-peptidase IV were determined. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in “Biology” after the minor amendments given below:

- Line 19-20: “… should be enough to exert in vivo anti-hypertensive activity”. As this manuscript only dealt with in vitro biological activities, it is a bit speculative to assume that the findings also reflect “in vivo” situation. Therefore, I suggest authors to remove “in vivo” expression throughout the manuscript.

Reply: According to the reviewer’s comment we removed any speculation about the in vivo possible effect of cheese consumption.

- Please remove the footnotes from Table 2 as this table does not contain these abbreviations.

Reply: Done. We apologize for the mistakes. The footnotes from Table 2 have been deleted. Please see revised Table 2.

- Figures: Generally, in statistics letter “a” is assigned to the highest value and the other letters follow it in the sequential order. In this respect it is quite difficult to understand the designation of letters in Fig 2C and 2D. Please check this issue.

Reply: Done. See revised Figures 1 and 2 and revised Tables 2 and 4.

- Lines 365-398: The differences observed between the two antioxidant activity assays could be related to the fact that FRAP assay only measures hydrophilic antioxidants, whereas with ABTS assay both hydrophilic and lyophilic antioxidants are measured. In addition, FRAP assay works in acidic condition, in which antioxidants dissociate poorly resulting in underestimation of the result. I suggest authors to discuss these issues in then manuscript. You may refer to the following publication or any other relevant: doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78160-6_22

Reply: We added some discussion about this point. Please see lines 406-413 page 10 of the revised manuscript

 - In addition to the above, there are a few typographical errors throughout the manuscript. E.g., line 131: “examinate” should be revised as “examined”; line 614: “5” should be “6”. Please check the entire manuscript carefully in order to minimize such errors.

Reply: We apologize for the mistake in the main text of the manuscript. The manuscript was checked by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and bio-2 logical activities of different Egyptian cheeses

General comments:

This manuscript contains many grammatical mistakes which need to be considered by authors.

Abstract should be more concise.

Introduction

Line 69: use “due to” instead of “thanks to”

Materials and Methods

Line 131: use “examined” instead of “those”

Results and discussion

Line 398: use “showed” instead of “presented”

References

Ref # 3: use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 4: follow the reference style, use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 7: use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 36, 37, 40, 42, 46: spacing issue

Ref # 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59: use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 30: volume no is underlined

Ref # 41: correct page no.

Author Response

Reviewer#3

Title: Peptidomics profile, bioactive peptides identification and bio-2 logical activities of different Egyptian cheeses

General comments:

This manuscript contains many grammatical mistakes which need to be considered by authors.

Reply: We apologize for the mistake in the main text of the manuscript. The manuscript was checked by a native English speaker.

Abstract should be more concise.

Reply: Abstract has been shortened. Please see revised Abstract section.

Introduction

Line 69: use “due to” instead of “thanks to”

Reply: Done. See line 73 page 2 of the revised manuscript

Materials and Methods

Line 131: use “examined” instead of “those”

Reply: Done. See line 136 page 3 of the revised manuscript

Results and discussion

Line 398: use “showed” instead of “presented”

Reply: Done. See line 415 page 10 of the revised manuscript

References

Ref # 3: use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 4: follow the reference style, use (-) instead of (_)

Ref # 7: use (-) instead of (_)

Reply: Done. See references 3, 4 and 7 in the revised version of the manuscript.

Ref # 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 36, 37, 40, 42, 46: spacing issue

Reply: Done. See references list in the revised version of the manuscript.

Ref # 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59: use (-) instead of (_)

Reply: Done. See references list in the revised version of the manuscript.

Ref # 30: volume no is underlined

Reply: Corrected. See reference 30 in the revised version of the manuscript.

 Ref # 41: correct page no.

Reply: Reference 41 (now reference 43 in the revised version of the manuscript) doesn’t have the page number since the journal is published in an e-version.