Next Article in Journal
Comparative Characterization of Key Volatile Compounds in Slow- and Fast-Growing Duck Raw Meat Based on Widely Targeted Metabolomics
Previous Article in Journal
Combination of Solid State and Submerged Fermentation Strategies to Produce a New Jellyfish-Based Food
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Diverse Galactooligosaccharides Differentially Reduce LPS-Induced Inflammation in Macrophages

Foods 2022, 11(24), 3973; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11243973
by Congcong Sun 1,2, Bifang Hao 2, Daorui Pang 1, Qian Li 1, Erna Li 1, Qiong Yang 1, Yuxiao Zou 1, Sentai Liao 1 and Fan Liu 1,*
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Foods 2022, 11(24), 3973; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11243973
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 3 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Food Nutrition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Diverse Galactooligosaccharides Differentially Reduce LPS-In- 2 duced Inflammation in Macrophages" presents unprecedented results that may contribute to the understanding of the action of some probiotics on inflammatory processes. Particularly, I understand that all relevant points found in the study were explored in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

   Thanks very much for taking your time to review our manuscript entitled “Diverse Galactooligosaccharides Differentially Reduce LPS-Induced Inflammation in Macrophages” (ID: foods-2021062). I really appreciate all your comments and approval! Thanks again!

Best Regards,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Fan Liu

Reviewer 2 Report

This is quiet an interesting study, describing in details the influence of GOS on inflammation. The introductory story goes very well.  Material and methods section is good. Results and discussion sections are described well and data presented are in accordance with literature. The literature cited is appropriate.

The language of the article is fine, just minor technical issues should be corrected.

Minor points:

Generally the article needs typesetting, eg. for citing the literature somewhere literature in the text is written without space at the end of the sentence[1] and somewhere it is not [2]. This should be separated by space. Results and discussion sections are described well and data presented are in accordance with literature. 

line 30: galactooligosaccharides instead of galactooligosaccharide

line 96: What does 1% double antibiotics mean? Antibiotic-Antimycotic or two antibiotics?

Conclusion section should emphasize what is the novelty of this study clearly.

Shortly, what are future perspectives of the use of GOS as food ingredients and what are potential benefits?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    Thanks very much for taking your time to review our manuscript entitled “Diverse Galactooligosaccharides Differentially Reduce LPS-Induced Inflammation in Macrophages” (ID: foods-2021062). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Point 1: Generally the article needs typesetting, eg. for citing the literature somewhere literature in the text is written without space at the end of the sentence[1] and somewhere it is not [2]. This should be separated by space.

Response 1: All typesetting shortcomings of presentations in this manuscript have been corrected.

Point 2: line 30: galactooligosaccharides instead of galactooligosaccharide

Response 2: 'galactooligosaccharides' has been instead of ‘galactooligosaccharide’ (line 30).

Point 3: line96: What does 1% double antibiotics mean? Antibiotic-Antimycotic or two antibiotics?

Response 3: 1% double antibiotics include 5000 U/mL penicillin and 5000 μg/mL streptomycin, which possesses combined antibacterial action against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. The description of the double antibiotics has been supplemented (line 97). ‘1% double antibiotics’ has been instead of ‘1% double antibiotics (penicillin and streptomycin)’.

Point 4: Conclusion section should emphasize what is the novelty of this study clearly. Shortly, what are future perspectives of the use of GOS as food ingredients and what are potential benefits?

Response 4: We have reorganized the conclusions and emphasized the highlights of this study, and indicated the potential value of GOS (line 358-369). Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript.

   Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Best Regards,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Fan Liu

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present study, the anti-inflammatory effects of natural and synthetic galactooligosaccharides were investigated by examining the structure-activity relationship between the degree of galactooligosaccharides polymerization and in vitro anti-inflammatory activity, as well as the potential underlying mechanism of their anti-inflammatory effects. The study is original and the article is well-designed.

However, the discussion and conclusion sections need to be expanded. What is the novelty of this paper? It looks like the main component of the paper is the determination of the activities. There are poorly references to the “active” molecules.

A few suggestions/corrections are provided in the attached pdf file.

Repetition of terms and expressions should be avoided.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

   Thanks very much for taking your time to review our manuscript entitled “Diverse Galactooligosaccharides Differentially Reduce LPS-Induced Inflammation in Macrophages” (ID: foods-2021062). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: 

Point 1: However, the discussion and conclusion sections need to be expanded. What is the novelty of this paper? It looks like the main component of the paper is the determination of the activities. There are poorly references to the “active” molecules.

Response 1: We have reorganized the discussions and conclusions, and emphasized the highlights of this study (line 346-369). In addition, we have supplemented the description of the active molecule (line 263-265 and line 296-298, reference [24-26,35]). Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript.

Point 2: A few suggestions/corrections are provided in the attached pdf file. Repetition of terms and expressions should be avoided.

Response 2: All spelling and grammar changes have been made as suggested by the reviewer.

  Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Best Regards,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Fan Liu

Back to TopTop