Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review effectively integrates recent data on chickpea's macronutrients (e.g., 18-28% protein), bioactive compounds (isoflavones like biochanin A), and health benefits (antioxidant, anti-inflammatory). Coverage of abiotic stresses (drought causing 40-50% yield loss) and breeding (QTLs, CRISPR) is solid, supported by 100+ references up to 2025.

Strengths include detailed Table 1 on nutrient composition across Kabuli/Desi types and Figures illustrating mechanisms. However, some claims (e.g., specific isoflavone increases post-germination) need more quantitative meta-analysis; suggest adding effect sizes where possible.

Language Evaluation

English is generally clear and professional, but minor grammatical issues persist (e.g., "poor mans meat" → "poor man's meat"; missing commas in abstract: "constituents these characteristics" → "constituents; these characteristics"). Tables have formatting errors (e.g., inconsistent abbreviations like "NR" without full form; misaligned columns in Table 1). Typos in references (e.g., incomplete DOIs) and awkward phrasing (e.g., "combined pressures of drought, heat, cold, and salinity continue to constrain" could be "persistently limit") need correction.

Figures are informative but low-resolution previews; ensure high-quality submission.

Comments

Abstract/Introduction: Clarify global production stats (e.g., Asia 83.9% in 2022) with source hyperlinks if possible. Expand future directions on multi-omics for combined stresses.

Section 2 (Nutrition): Standardize Table 1: Define all superscripts (a-g), units consistently (e.g., g/100g dw), and add SD where available. Discuss antinutritional factors (saponins, tannins) more balanced.

Section 3 (Bioactivities): Excellent mechanistic figures (Fig. 3); quantify IC50 values for ACE-inhibitory peptides across studies.

Section 4 (Stresses): Add comparative table of tolerant genotypes/traits. Link to breeding more explicitly.

Section 5 (Breeding): Update with 2026 CRISPR trials if available; discuss regulatory hurdles for GM/chickpea in China.

By-products (Table 2): Expand safety/allergen reduction methods.

References: Verify all DOIs (e.g., ref 1);

Author Response

Comments 1: Some claims (e.g., specific isoflavone increases post-germination) need more quantitative meta-analysis; suggest adding effect sizes where possible.

Response 1: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We fully agree that providing specific quantitative data enhances the scientific rigor of our manuscript. We have integrated precise quantitative data and fold-changes to strengthen our claims. For instance, we specified the exact baseline concentrations of predominant isoflavones and quantified the effect size of bioprocessing. The modified content is as follows [Page 9, Lines 166-179]:

2.5.1. Isoflavones

“Studies have identified seven isoflavones (Fig. 2), among which biochanin A (0.18 ± 0.02 mg/10 g) and formononetin (0.10 ± 0.01 mg/10 g) are the absolute predominant components [26,27]. ”

“Bioprocessing interventions are even more drastic: under specific germination conditions (e.g., 33 °C, 171 h), the total flavonoid content of black chickpea can surge by nearly 115-fold [26,29]. ”

Comments 2: Language Evaluation: Minor grammatical issues persist (e.g., poor mans meat; missing commas in abstract). Tables have formatting errors (e.g., inconsistent abbreviations like NR without full form; misaligned columns in Table 1). Typos in references (e.g., incomplete DOIs) and awkward phrasing (e.g., combined pressures... continue to constrain could be persistently limit) need correction.

Response 2: We sincerely apologize for these linguistic and formatting oversights, and we are deeply grateful for your careful proofreading. We have thoroughly polished the entire manuscript. We corrected poor mans meat to poor man's meat, fixed the punctuation in the abstract to read bioactive constituents; these characteristics, and adopted your elegant phrasing persistently limit its yield potential. In Table 1, the columns have been perfectly aligned, and NR is now explicitly defined as Not Reported in the footnote. The modified content is located in the Abstract, Section 1, and Table 1 [Page 1, Lines 10-82]:

Abstract

“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a major annual legume crop with a balanced nutritional profile and a broad spectrum of bioactive constituents; these characteristics have made it a useful ingredient in health-oriented food applications. ”

“Nonetheless, the combined pressures of drought, heat, cold, and salinity persistently limit its yield potential and cultivation stability. ”

1. Introduction

“It contains substantial levels of carbohydrates, high-quality protein, unsaturated fatty acids, polyphenols, dietary fiber, minerals, and vitamins, making it a nutritionally dense food often referred to as the “poor man’s meat” [3]. ”

Table 1. Nutrient compositions of chickpeas.

“Note: dw = dry weight; NR = not reported. The superscripts (a–g) denote the corresponding bibliographic references from which the data were compiled: a = [12], b = [13], c = [14], d = [15], e = [2], f = [16], and g = [17]. ”

Comments 3: Figures are informative but low-resolution previews; ensure high-quality submission.

Response 3: We regret the poor image quality in the initial submission. We have generated and uploaded separate, full-size, high-resolution (600 DPI) original files for all figures to ensure optimal clarity during the production process.

Comments 4: Abstract/Introduction: Clarify global production stats (e.g., Asia 83.9% in 2022) with source hyperlinks if possible. Expand future directions on multi-omics for combined stresses.

Response 4: Thank you for these valuable recommendations. We have updated the global production statistics to the latest 2024 data (Asia accounting for 83.4%) and directly embedded the FAOSTAT source hyperlink in Section 1. Furthermore, we expanded the discussion in the Abstract and Section 6 to emphasize the integration of multi-omics data in deciphering plant defense networks under concurrent field abiotic stresses. The modified content is as follows [Page 1, Lines 32-45]:

1. Introduction

“Long-term agricultural records from 2004 to 2024 show steady increases in chickpea production and harvested area during a period marked by worldwide initiatives targeting hunger and malnutrition, with Fig. 1B depicting this upward trajectory (FAOSTAT. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize [accessed on 17 May, 2026]). Fig. 1C further highlights the regional distribution, with Asia accounting for 83.4% of global output in 2024, followed by Oceania, Africa, the Americas, and Europe. ”

Comments 5: Section 2 (Nutrition): Standardize Table 1: Define all superscripts (a-g), units consistently (e.g., g/100g dw), and add SD where available. Discuss antinutritional factors (saponins, tannins) more balanced.

Response 5: We greatly appreciate your meticulous review. Table 1 has been strictly standardized according to your instructions. All units are unified to g/100 g dw, standard deviations have been added where available in the original literature, and superscripts (a-g) are comprehensively defined in the new footnote. Additionally, we have expanded Sections 2.5.2 and 5.2 to provide a balanced, objective discussion on antinutritional factors, detailing their dual roles as both health-promoting agents (e.g., cholesterol-lowering) and processing challenges (e.g., physical leaching during water soaking and allergenic risks). These large modifications are located in Table 1, Section 2.5.2, and Section 5.2 [Page 3, Lines 80-82; Page 9, Lines 184-204; Page 16, Lines 428-483].

Comments 6: Section 3 (Bioactivities): quantify IC50 values for ACE-inhibitory peptides across studies.

Response 6: We fully agree with this suggestion. We have incorporated this quantitative metric into Section 3.3 to provide a clearer scientific evaluation of their antihypertensive potential. The modified content is as follows [Page 12, Lines 269-272]:

3.3. ACE-inhibitory activity

“Early work demonstrated that chickpea protein hydrolysates generated through alcalase digestion contain abundant peptides exhibiting ACE inhibition, with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) ranging from 0.11 to 0.21 mg/mL [41]. ”

Comments 7: Section 4 (Stresses): Add comparative table of tolerant genotypes/traits. Link to breeding more explicitly.

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate this constructive suggestion. To follow the Academic Editor's guidance on shifting the manuscript focus from pure agronomy to food science, we decided not to add a standalone agronomic comparative table. We made this choice to avoid disrupting the continuous narrative flow of the food chemistry sections. However, we fully agree with the importance of highlighting genotypic differences. To address your valuable point, we have instead added a targeted comparison between two chickpea genotypes in Section 2. Furthermore, we deeply integrated the traits of tolerant genotypes directly into the main text and explicitly linked them to breeding programs.

For instance, the revised text explains that based on reproductive indicators such as pollen germination and pod setting, researchers have successfully identified six thermotolerant genotypes and integrated them into cross-breeding programs. We also discussed how selecting specific mutant lines to optimize the activities of key enzymes in fatty acid synthesis and secondary metabolism effectively suppresses heat-induced lipid rancidity. These updates are located in Section 2 and Section 4. [Page 7, Lines 83-204; Page 14, Lines 360-379]

Comments 8: Section 5 (Breeding): Update with 2026 CRISPR trials if available; discuss regulatory hurdles for GM/chickpea in China.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your thoughtful advice. We have updated Section 5.1 to include the recent progress on CRISPR applications in chickpea breeding. Regarding the regulatory hurdles for GM crops, since actual research on transgenic chickpea is still quite limited globally at this stage, we have gently touched upon this reality within Section 5.1 to keep the discussion accurate and well-focused. Thank you again for helping us improve our manuscript. [Page 16, Lines 428-455]

5.1. Co-selection of Climate Resilience and Functional Components

“In response to global nutritional challenges, modern chickpea breeding increasingly focuses on the co-selection of agronomic resilience and nutritional quality. Recent findings indicate that irrigation timing exerts a decisive influence on the nutritional composition of chickpea: irrigation before flowering yields the highest protein content at 29.52%, whereas irrigation at early flowering favors starch accumulation at 36.30% [84]. To broaden the narrow genetic base of cultivated germplasm, wide hybridization incorporating 1,476 wild accessions is deployed to introduce elite alleles for environmental adaptation [85]. Concurrently, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are utilized to dissect the genetic architecture governing fatty acid profiles and micronutrient configurations, thereby guiding the targeted biofortification of core minerals such as iron and zinc [86]. ”

“Building upon these genomic insights, the integration of marker-assisted selection (MAS) enables the precise anchoring of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) linked to drought [87], extreme temperature [88,89], salinity [90], and heavy metal tolerance. Currently, utilizing specific allelic variants of the CaStGR1 gene permits the efficient enrichment of carotenoids within seeds while fully preserving environmental plasticity [91]. In parallel, multiplex CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing facilitates the targeted knockout of specific lipoxygenase (CaLOX) genes to effectively suppress stress-induced lipid rancidity; meanwhile, modulating elite transcription factors, including CaMyb and CaDREB, synchronously activates osmotic defense responses and accelerates the biosynthesis of health-promoting isoflavones like biochanin A [9,57]. Although gene-editing technologies demonstrate remarkable improvement efficacy, research on transgenic chickpea remains relatively limited. This regulatory alignment successfully transforms environmental adversity into upstream physiological stimuli, ultimately securing the directional selection of high-yielding, nutrient-dense, and stable ideotypes with optimized quality profiles. ”

Comments 9: By-products (Table 2): Expand safety/allergen reduction methods.

Response 9: We appreciate you pointing this out. We have significantly expanded the safety discussion in the newly revised Section 5.2 By-product Valorization and Safety Control [Page 16, Lines 456-483]. We detailed the seven putative cross-reactive IgE-mediated allergens and discussed how modern controlled biological transformations (germination, solid-state fermentation) and instant controlled pressure-drop (DIC) technologies disrupt the tertiary spatial conformation and selectively cleave linear IgE-binding epitopes, deeply enhancing the immunological safety of chickpea by-products.

5.2. By-product Valorization and Safety Control

“Globally, chickpea utilization is expanding from traditional preparations such as hummus and soups toward modern industrial products, including flour, functional snacks, plant-based beverages, and coffee substitutes [92,93]. The specific forms of chickpea utilization within food processing sectors are summarized in Table 2. ”

“However, the concentration of antinutritional factors—such as tannins, saponins, and phytic acid—along with nonspecific lipid-transfer proteins and α-amylase inhibitors in raw materials can provoke allergic reactions [94,95]. Proteomic screening has identified seven putative cross-reactive IgE-mediated allergens, severely constraining their high-value dietary applications [96]. The deactivation efficiency of these hazardous factors is tightly coupled with the physicochemical functionality of the by-product matrices: although conventional pressure cooking can eliminate up to 93.97% of tannins and 87.71% of total polyphenols to neutralize primary antinutritional constraints, intense thermal shearing often compromises the physicochemical and processing functionalities of macromolecular proteins within the by-products [97]. Conversely, controlled biological transformations such as germination and solid-state fermentation not only significantly enhance the in vitro digestibility of starch and protein within the by-products but also selectively cleave the linear IgE-binding epitopes of allergenic proteins through advanced multi-modal degradation networks; furthermore, integration with instant controlled pressure-drop (DIC) technology or controlled Maillard reaction-based modifications can profoundly disrupt the tertiary spatial conformation of potential allergens [30,98,99]. When combined with pressure cooking, these strategies enhance food safety by simultaneously reducing antinutritional factors and minimizing allergenic risks. Future research should focus on optimizing and integrating multi-method synergistic modification technologies to systematically construct immunological and toxicological safety control systems for deeply processed chickpea by-products, thereby thoroughly eliminating hazardous components while maximizing the preservation of their nutritional configurations to promote their widespread application in functional dietary systems. ”

Comments 10: References: Verify all DOIs (e.g., ref 1).

Response 10: Thank you for your careful check. We have comprehensively cross-checked the entire bibliography and corrected all missing, incomplete, or broken DOIs, including the specific issue noted in Reference 1.

Regarding the references, we have carefully reviewed and updated our bibliography to align with the core scope of the journal and enhance the novelty of our manuscript. Specifically, we deleted the references from the original draft that were predominantly focused on pure agronomic cultivation, plant genetics, and basic stress survival mechanisms without direct relevance to food science. Concurrently, we added highly relevant recent references focusing on food processing technologies, food safety (e.g., allergen reduction), and the regulatory challenges of gene-edited crops in China. Furthermore, we have meticulously verified and corrected the formats and DOIs of all references to ensure compliance with the journal's guidelines. We standardized the journal abbreviations, unified author name formats, and corrected incomplete DOIs wherever they were available. However, we noticed that a few specific references (e.g., Refs. [93], [101], and the classic historical text Ref. [105]: Saxena, M.C.; Singh, K. The chickpea; 1987) currently do not have DOIs assigned by their publishers due to their early publication dates or specific indexing policies. For these entries, we have meticulously verified all other bibliographic details to ensure accuracy and traceability. The modified content is located in the References [Page 18, Lines 517-769].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-written. The focus of this study is chickpea, a food product that integrates nutritional excellence, health benefits, and abiotic stress resilience, rendering it suitable for sustainable food systems. The authors provided a comprehensive overview of the nutritional profile of chickpeas and the spectrum of bioactive constituents they contain. They also discussed recent progress in research on chickpeas, including the physiological determinants that underpin tolerance to abiotic stresses and pathways for utilising chickpea-derived processing by-products. The introduction of the article widely addresses the research topic. The article cites literature relevant to the research problem. However, it is recommended that the remaining sections of the manuscript be revised in accordance with the following recommendations.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. It is imperative that the full-size figures are provided (Figure 1), as the font size of the current version is inadequate for legible reading of the text.
2. Table 1 is of considerable size. In order to enhance the legibility of the text, it would be advisable to decrease the font size. Furthermore, it is evident that the columns are not arranged in an optimal manner - there is a lack of clarity regarding the values and descriptions (i.e. which values correspond to which descriptor).
3. Table 1 - The column subsequent to the 'Nutrients' column remains unlabelled. What is presented? 
4. Table 1 - uppercase letters are used (^a, ^b, ^c, etc.). but the intended meaning of these letters is not explained.
5. Table 1: Consider the grouping of nutrients in the 'subtype', e.g. 'Type' – 'Lipids', 'Grouping' – 'Monounsaturated', and 'examples – 'Palmitoleic acid', 'Oleic acid',; Type' – 'Phenolic compounds', 'Grouping' – 'Isoflavones', and 'examples – 'genistein, .....' ect.
6. In Section 2, 'Nutritional composition', I suggest describing the chemical composition, as well as the differences between genotypes and after food processing. Describing their role in the organism should be omitted from that section. Moreover, this information is not presented uniformly. In some subsections, the authors describe the group in general, while in others, they present species-specific trace compounds and their role in the organism.
7. The authors prepared the section entitled 'Biological activities', in which the role of compounds should be described. They provided an explanation regarding the preventive role that chickpeas play in relation to specific health issues, attributing this function to the nutrients and compounds that are present in the grain. Authors are kindly requested to transfer the information from Section 2 to Section 3. In this section, authors should provide a detailed explanation of the health benefits, highlighting the groups of compounds responsible for these properties and identifying specific compounds of interest. 
8. The main aims and scopes of the section 'Food Nutrition' in Foods are: focus on food composition, food quality and safety, bioactive compounds, health benefits, adverse effects of foods ect. Considering these main aims, the current form of section 4 'Effects of abiotic stress on chickpea', does not seem appropriate.  However, it should be noted that this section alone is very interesting, and the topics discussed are of great importance. Notwithstanding, this section is more suited to journals that focus exclusively on plant research than on the utilisation of plants as foodstuffs. Should the authors wish to present the aspects related to biotic and abiotic stressors, and their influence on chickpeas as a foodstuff, it would be advisable for them to adopt a slightly different perspective. It is well established that abiotic/biotic stressors enhance biochemical activity in plants, thereby resulting in increased production of compounds such as for eg. phenolic compounds, which in turn enhance a plant's resistance/response. Moreover, phenolics have been shown to have health benefits for consumers. It is imperative to emphasise the interconnection between stressors, elevated concentrations of specific compounds, breeding for particular substances, final composition and quality, and health-promoting compounds, thereby enhancing their visibility.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is imperative that the full-size figures are provided (Figure 1), as the font size of the current version is inadequate for legible reading of the text.

Response 1: We apologize for the formatting oversight and any inconvenience it caused during your review. In this revised submission, we have uploaded a separate high resolution original file for Figure 1. Furthermore, we took this opportunity to update the figure to reflect the latest global production statistics up to the year 2024. We also embedded direct source hyperlinks in the corresponding text to provide clear and traceable references. We hope these updates make the figure much clearer and more informative.

Comments 2: Table 1 is of considerable size. In order to enhance the legibility of the text, it would be advisable to decrease the font size. Furthermore, it is evident that the columns are not arranged in an optimal manner - there is a lack of clarity regarding the values and descriptions. The column subsequent to the Nutrients column remains unlabelled. What is presented? uppercase letters are used (a, b, c, etc.) but the intended meaning of these letters is not explained. Consider the grouping of nutrients in the subtype, e.g. Type - Lipids, Grouping - Monounsaturated, and examples - Palmitoleic acid, Oleic acid.

Response 2: Thank you for your meticulous and brilliant structural advice. We fully agree with your assessment and have entirely reformatted Table 1 according to your exact recommendations [Page 3, Lines 80-82]. We reduced the overall font size to improve the page layout. The previously unlabelled column has been appropriately titled Reported Values / Literature Values. We added a comprehensive footnote explicitly defining the superscripts (a-g). Most importantly, we introduced your strict hierarchical grouping structure: Type (e.g., Lipids), Grouping (e.g., Monounsaturated FA), and Nutrients (e.g., Oleic acid). These structural optimizations have vastly improved the logical flow and clarity of the data.

Comments 3: In Section 2, Nutritional composition, I suggest describing the chemical composition, as well as the differences between genotypes and after food processing. Describing their role in the organism should be omitted from that section. Moreover, this information is not presented uniformly.

Response 3: We fully adopt this excellent structural recommendation. Section 2 [Page 3, Lines 76-204] has been strictly rewritten to focus exclusively on baseline chemical profiles, genotypic variations between Kabuli and Desi types, and physicochemical transformations induced by specific processing techniques (e.g., leaching during soaking, thermal denaturation). All texts describing physiological roles and health benefits have been entirely removed from this section to ensure absolute uniformity.

Comments 4: The authors prepared the section entitled Biological activities, in which the role of compounds should be described. Authors are kindly requested to transfer the information from Section 2 to Section 3. In this section, authors should provide a detailed explanation of the health benefits, highlighting the groups of compounds responsible for these properties and identifying specific compounds of interest.

Response 4: As advised, all physiological health functions were seamlessly transferred from Section 2 to Section 3 [Page 10, Lines 205-333]. Furthermore, to deepen the mechanistic discussion, we mapped the transferred functional data into distinct health benefits and explicitly highlighted the specific compounds of interest. For example, in Section 3.2, we pinpointed soyasaponin βg and detailed its mechanism in binding bile acids and interrupting enterohepatic circulation. We also highlighted biochanin A for its specific target-organ protection against microglial activation and neuroinflammation.

Comments 5: The main aims and scopes of the section Food Nutrition in Foods are: focus on food composition, food quality and safety, bioactive compounds, health benefits... Considering these main aims, the current form of section 4 Effects of abiotic stress on chickpea, does not seem appropriate. It is more suited to journals that focus exclusively on plant research. It is well established that abiotic/biotic stressors enhance biochemical activity in plants, thereby resulting in increased production of compounds such as for eg. phenolic compounds, which in turn enhance a plant's resistance/response. Moreover, phenolics have been shown to have health benefits for consumers. It is imperative to emphasise the interconnection between stressors, elevated concentrations of specific compounds, breeding for particular substances, final composition and quality, and health-promoting compounds.

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for this excellent and highly constructive suggestion. We fully agree with your perspective that a purely agronomic focus is better suited for a plant research journal rather than a food science journal. Your advice helped us realize how to better frame this information, and we are very grateful for it. To align the manuscript with the core aims of food nutrition, we have completely rewritten this section. The section is now titled 4. Abiotic Stress and the Reconstruction of Chickpea Nutritional Quality.

Following your guidance, we shifted the focus from plant survival mechanisms to how environmental stressors act as triggers for nutritional remodeling. We now systematically discuss how drought, heat, and salinity induce the accumulation of secondary metabolites, such as polyphenols, flavonoids, and free proline, as a defense response. We then explain how this accumulation directly enhances the antioxidant properties and overall dietary value of the final edible grain. Furthermore, we explicitly linked these stress-induced biochemical changes to targeted biofortification breeding strategies in Section 5.1. We hope these revisions successfully connect the agricultural aspects with the core aims of food composition and human health. The detailed modifications can be found in Section 4 and Section 5.1 [Page 13, Lines 334-483].

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The alterations implemented by the authors had a favourable impact on the work. The document has undergone a thorough revision process to ensure that its structure is optimised and its readability is enhanced. In its present form, the manuscript makes a substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge on chickpeas.