Preparation, Characterization, and Anti-Colitis Activity of Low-Viscosity EDTA-Soluble Polysaccharides from Almond Gum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic and is supported by a large dataset and comprehensive analyses. However, certain revisions are required to improve the clarity and overall readability of the paper. General and specific comments are attached below.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
General Comments and Structure
Comment 1: Title
The current title is too long and overloaded, as it includes the extraction method, raw material,
disease model, and proposed mechanism all at once. More importantly, it places the biomedical
outcome in the foreground, whereas the manuscript itself is built first around extraction
optimization, EDTA modification, viscosity reduction, and polysaccharide characterization. One of the key findings of the manuscript is the substantial reduction in viscosity, which is highly relevant from a technological perspective, yet this important outcome is not reflected in the title.
I therefore recommend revising the title so that it better represents the actual structure and
contribution of the paper. A more balanced title should emphasize process, characterization, and application
Response: We agree with the reviewer. We have revised the title to better balance the technological innovation (EDTA extraction) and the biological application.
Revision: The title has been changed to: “Preparation, Characterization, and Anti-Colitis Activity of Low-Viscosity EDTA-Soluble Polysaccharides from Almond Gum”ï¼›(Lines 1–3).
Comment 2: Introduction
Response: In the introduction, we have supplemented the text with the known chemical properties, structural characteristics, and previously reported functionalities or bioactivities of apricot kernel gum. References 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been added to illustrate the current state of research on apricot kernel gum polysaccharides and their research value. (Lines 45–57)
The second paragraph of the introduction has been rewritten to explain the applicability and advantages of the selected methods. (Lines 58–87)
In the third paragraph of the introduction, we re-established the relationship between bioactivity and structural composition, elucidated structure-activity relationships, and used content from the latest research literature to illustrate key structure-activity relationship information. (Lines 88–108)
In the final paragraph of the introduction, we rewrote the research objectives to present them in a clearer and more structured manner. (Lines 109–124)
Comment 3: Methods
Response: We have revised the entire Materials and Methods section to ensure a professional, uniform passive voice.
Results and Discussion
Comment 4: Results and Discussion
Response: We have consolidated the “Results and Discussion” section to ensure the text flows logically, particularly by improving the transition between the structural characterization and the animal experiments, and have added relevant key points and references in lines 377–387.
Comment 5: The transition to animal experiments feels abrupt. The subtitle should not be "Animal experiments" but focus on the purpose (protective effects).
Response: Revise headings such as “2.11 Animal Studies” and “3.5 EAGP-W1 effectively alleviated…” to use more function-oriented phrasing, for example: “3.5 Evaluation of the protective effects of EAGP-W1 in a DSS-induced colitis model.”
Conclusion
Comment 6: The conclusion is too general. It should explicitly mention key findings, such as the reduction in viscosity and specific effects on the gut microbiota.
Response: We have rewritten the “Conclusion” section to include specific data and findings. (Lines 521–547)
Comment 11: Formulate biological effects more cautiously; avoid implying direct therapeutic application.
Response: We have adjusted the language to emphasize "potential protective effects" and "functional food development". (Lines 521–547)
Specific Comments
Comment 1. Potential applications: The manuscript would be strengthened by a short discussion of the possible applications of the obtained polysaccharide, for example as a functional food ingredient, a prebiotic candidate, or a hydrocolloid with improved processability.
Response: A paragraph discussing these three application perspectives has been added to the Discussion and Conclusion. (Lines 377–388 and 521–547)
Comment 2. Terminology and focus: Throughout the manuscript, please ensure that the presentation consistently reflects the central idea of the study. In my view, the main contribution is that EDTA modification improves the extraction and functional potential of almond gum
polysaccharides, while the biological study serves as an important validation of this effect.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful suggestions.
To better highlight this focus, we have made the following adjustments in the revised manuscript:
Refining the Introduction: We have added a discussion on the “viscosity-solubility” bottleneck of natural gum and repositioned EDTA-assisted extraction as a solution with a unique mechanism. Animal experiments are now explicitly described as evaluating whether this technological modification preserves or enhances the prebiotic and anti-inflammatory potential of almond gum. (Lines 45–62, 88–108)
Restructuring: In the Results and Discussion section, we have strengthened the link between the “porous structure” created by EDTA and the resulting “improved flowability/processability,” emphasizing that these technical enhancements form the basis for the effective application of this polysaccharide in biological systems.
Balancing the Conclusions Section: The Conclusions section now first highlights the successful establishment of the EDTA strategy and its industrial significance (e.g., as a high-performance hydrophilic colloid), followed by the results of the biological validation. (Lines 521–547).
Comment 3. Figure 6 in the results has part E which is not mentioned in the figure description/legend and also can’t be linked to the introduction and material and methods. It should be better differentiated which figure (acetic acid, valeric acid and butanoic acid graphs show).
Response: The legend for Figure 6 has been corrected to include Part E (SCFAs), and the specific organic acids are now clearly identified. (Lines 493–494).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
After assessing the manuscript submitted to the Foods journal by Dilixiati et al., I have some suggestions for the authors, before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These are my recommendations:
The abstract should be properly structured. A background statement is missing before the objectives are mentioned; The main results have to be highlighted quantitatively, and the statistical significance (p-values) pointed out; Some directions for further research should be indicated at the end of the conclusions.
References need to be properly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.
The relevance of this study from a worldwide perspective should be better clarified in the introductory section.
The sugar content testing (section 2.6) needs to be explained. The authors only mentioned the applied method, but this has to be briefly explained. The same is applied to the measurement of intrinsic viscosity (section 2.7).
In section 2, it is missing the ethical aspects of the experimentation. It is mandatory to mention the name of the institution that approved the study, the approval date, and the code.
The quality and size of Figure 6 have to be improved.
The Results are nicely described. However, in the Discussion section, I miss further analysis on the possible extrapolation of the obtained results to humans. The authors should mention and discuss their study’s limitations and strengths. The division into subsections of the Discussion (aligned with the Results) would help in the manuscript’s organization.
In the Conclusion, similarly to the abstract, the authors have to point out some directions for further investigations.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers
Manuscript ID: foods-4206971
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your time and the constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We have carefully studied all the suggestions and have made extensive revisions to the manuscript to address the concerns raised.
Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1: The abstract should be properly structured. A background statement is missing before the objectives are mentioned; The main results have to be highlighted quantitatively, and the statistical significance (p-values) pointed out; Some directions for further research should be indicated at the end of the conclusions.
Response: Following your suggestions, we have comprehensively rewritten the Abstract. (Lines 15–33)
The specific revisions are detailed as follows:
- Addition of Background: We have added a concise background statement at the very beginning of the Abstract to contextualize the structural and practical challenges (e.g., the high-viscosity bottleneck) of natural almond gum before introducing our specific research objective.
- Quantitative Highlights and Statistical Significance: We have systematically quantified the major findings throughout the Abstract. Crucial data, including the reduction in viscosity, extraction yield, and in vivo biological outcomes, are now explicitly presented with their corresponding statistical significance (e.g., p < 0.05, p < 0.01).
- Future Research Directions: As suggested, we have appended a concluding sentence at the end of the Abstract to point out the direction for future research, emphasizing its potential translation into functional food applications.
Comment 2: References need to be properly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.
Response: We apologize for the initial oversight regarding the reference formatting. We have carefully cross-checked and completely reformatted all the references—including both the in-text citations and the final bibliography list—to strictly comply with the journal's current Author Guidelines. Thank you for pointing this out to ensure the professional presentation of our manuscript.
Comment 3: The relevance of this study from a worldwide perspective should be better clarified in the introductory section.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this highly constructive suggestion, which significantly broadens the scope and enhances the international appeal of our manuscript. We fully agree that framing the study within a global context is crucial for demonstrating its broader scientific and industrial value.
In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Introduction to explicitly highlight the worldwide relevance of our research. Specifically, we contextualized our work within two major global trends:
(1) The escalating worldwide demand for natural, sustainable, and plant-based hydrocolloids as alternatives to synthetic food additives.
(2) The growing global health consensus on the importance of prebiotics and functional food ingredients for gut microbiome modulation.
By situating the EDTA-modified almond gum (EAGP) within these global paradigms, we hope to better illustrate its potential as a universally applicable industrial and nutritional resource.
Comment 4: The sugar content testing (section 2.6) needs to be explained. The authors only mentioned the applied method, but this has to be briefly explained. The same is applied to the measurement of intrinsic viscosity (section 2.7).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this meticulous and valuable comment. We agree that relying solely on method names or citations reduces the readability and reproducibility of the manuscript. Following your advice, we have supplemented Sections 2.6 and 2.7 with brief but essential explanations of the experimental procedures and analytical principles.
Comment 5: In section 2, it is missing the ethical aspects of the experimentation. It is mandatory to mention the name of the institution that approved the study, the approval date, and the code.
Response: Following your strict guidance. We have explicitly stated the name of the approving ethics committee, the exact date of approval, and the official protocol code. (Lines 562–564)
The animal experimentation protocol was approved by the Xinjiang Medical University Laboratory Animal Ethics Committee (Xinjiang Medical University Laboratory Animal Center, protocol number （IACUC-20250717-04, approval date: July 17, 2025).
Comment 6: The quality and size of Figure 6 have to be improved.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We sincerely apologize for the poor presentation of the original Figure 6, which may have hindered a clear interpretation of the data.
Following your suggestion, we have supplemented Figure 6 with complete information to significantly improve its quality and readability.
Comment 7: The Results are nicely described. However, in the Discussion section, I miss further analysis on the possible extrapolation of the obtained results to humans. The authors should mention and discuss their study’s limitations and strengths. The division into subsections of the Discussion (aligned with the Results) would help in the manuscript’s organization.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback on our Results and for these highly constructive suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the logical flow, depth, and objectivity of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your advice. The specific modifications are detailed as follows:
- Reorganization of Results and Discussion:
Regarding your excellent suggestion to align the Discussion with the Results to improve the manuscript's organization, we completely agree with the underlying rationale. To achieve the most seamless and coherent flow, we have structurally upgraded the manuscript by merging the "Results" and "Discussion" into a single combined section ("Results and Discussion").
Within this new structure, each experimental result is immediately followed by its corresponding in-depth discussion. Furthermore, we have specifically polished the logical transitions throughout the text, particularly improving the narrative connection between the structural characterization and the in vivo animal experiments. We believe this integrated approach perfectly addresses your concern regarding the manuscript's organization and readability.
- Refinement of the Conclusion:
Based on the expanded discussion mentioned above, we have also refined the Conclusion section to provide a more comprehensive and accurate summary of our study's impact and future perspectives.
We genuinely appreciate your rigorous review, which has guided us to present our work in a much more structured and scientifically robust manner. (Lines 521–547)
Comment 8: In the Conclusion, similarly to the abstract, the authors have to point out some directions for further investigations.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. We completely agree that highlighting future research directions provides a more forward-looking and comprehensive closure to the manuscript. (Lines 521–547)
In accordance with your recommendation, we have expanded the Conclusion section to explicitly outline the specific directions for our further investigations, ensuring it perfectly aligns with the perspectives mentioned in the Abstract
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous version, and the authors have adequately addressed the major comments raised during the first round of review. The revisions are evident across the manuscript, resulting in improved clarity, structure, and overall presentation of results.
As minor comments, it should be noted that although the Results and Discussion sections are combined, subsections 3.1 and 3.2 currently present only the results without sufficient discussion. It would be beneficial for the authors to further discuss the obtained results within these sections and relate them to relevant literature by including appropriate references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers
Manuscript ID: foods-4206971
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your time and the constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We have carefully studied all the suggestions and have made extensive revisions to the manuscript to address the concerns raised.
Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1: The manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous version, and the authors have adequately addressed the major comments raised during the first round of review. The revisions are evident across the manuscript, resulting in improved clarity, structure, and overall presentation of results.
Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments. We are glad that the revisions have met your expectations and improved the clarity of our paper.
Comment 2: As minor comments, it should be noted that although the Results and Discussion sections are combined, subsections 3.1 and 3.2 currently present only the results without sufficient discussion. It would be beneficial for the authors to further discuss the obtained results within these sections and relate them to relevant literature by including appropriate references.
Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. We have now expanded the discussion in sections 3.1 and 3.2 to better interpret our findings and establish connections with existing literature. Specifically:
In Section 3.1.1 (Lines 277–287): We have added a discussion on the mechanism by which EDTA chelates divalent metal ions to disrupt the cross-linked network of almond gum, thereby promoting polysaccharide release. This interpretation is now supported by References [13] and [16], which describe similar chelation-assisted extraction processes.
In Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Lines 296–305): We have incorporated a discussion regarding the decline in absorbance observed at extended reaction and extraction times, attributing this phenomenon to potential partial acid hydrolysis or thermal degradation of the polysaccharide chains. This is now corroborated by References [14] and [24].
In Section 3.2.1 (Lines 330–338): We have further discussed the statistical significance of the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) results. We clarified the sensitivity order of the extraction factors and the importance of the quadratic terms in capturing the non-linear relationship between variables and yield, citing References [17] and [18] to justify the application of the Box-Behnken design.
We believe these additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of the EDTA-assisted modification process and its impact on the almond gum structure.
Thank you again for your valuable time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and that the paper is now suitable for publication in Foods.
