Next Article in Journal
Determination of Anthocyanin and Volatile Profile of Wines from Varieties Yiannoudi and Maratheftiko from the Island of Cyprus
Next Article in Special Issue
Lactic Fermented Fruit or Vegetable Juices: Past, Present and Future
Previous Article in Journal
Processing of Herbal Tea from Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.): Effects of Drying Temperature and Brewing Conditions on Total Soluble Solid, Phenolic Content, Antioxidant Capacity and Sensory Quality
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Designing New Yeasts for Craft Brewing: When Natural Biodiversity Meets Biotechnology

by Fabrizio Iattici †, Martina Catallo † and Lisa Solieri *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 21 November 2019 / Revised: 17 December 2019 / Accepted: 31 December 2019 / Published: 9 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wide World of Beverage Research: Reviews of Current Topics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper from Iaticci and coworkers gives an excellent overview of new trends in the brewery. It highlights the importance of Saccharomyces yeasts and their different physiological and genetic characteristics for beer production. The manuscript is excellently written and can be published in this form after some minor corrections.

Pictures: Numbers and explanations are usually subtitled. This journal makes probably no exception.
Line 141, Figure 3: quality and clarity appears somewhat poor. Suggest replacing it with a table showing the main genetic differences (sugar utilization, tolerances) between the different Saccharomyces yeast types (wild yeast and industrial strains).
Line 177: MAL1 or MAL31?
Line 526: Table 2 something wrong here
Line 541-543: Funding & Acknowledgements incomplete

Author Response

RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS ARISEN FROM R1

We thank very much Reviewer 1 (R1) for his/her valuable suggestions. We have corrected manuscript point by point, as described below.

1.1. Pictures: Numbers and explanations are usually subtitled. This journal makes probably no exception.

Answer 1.1. Thanks, we modified titles and subtitles of pictures.

 

1.2. Line 141, Figure 3: quality and clarity appear somewhat poor. Suggest replacing it with a table showing the main genetic differences (sugar utilization, tolerances) between the different Saccharomyces yeast types (wild yeast and industrial strains).

Answer 1.2. We apologize for the lack of clarity in explaining Figure 3. Figure 3 depicts marker-assisted selection of novel starter culture. Deciphering the genetic basis of brewing traits in high performant starter cultures can drive the development od novel brewing yeasts. We modified text and caption to better explain this point.

 

1.3. Line 177: MAL1 or MAL31?

Answer 1.3. We referred to as Gonçalves et al 2016 which found expansion of MAL31 genes in brewing strains.

 

1.4. Line 526: Table 2 something wrong here

Answer 1.4. I’m sorry, we added appropriate caption.

 

1.5. Line 541-543: Funding & Acknowledgements incomplete

Answer 1.5. We apologize for this typo. We corrected funding section and deleted Acknowledgements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review provides an overview of the currently available studies about the application of starter cultures for beer production. Both the advantages and limitations to improve novel craft beer production are explored. The topic is very interesting and references are updated.

The review is exceptionally long. The authors don’t provide logical explanation and critical analysis of cited works.

Abstract should be reduced and focused on the aim of review.

The first part is very boring since it reports well known concepts and the approach is scholastic. The main criticism is the absence of critical analysis.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS ARISEN FROM R2

We thank very much Reviewer 2 (R2) for his/her valuable suggestions. We have corrected manuscript point by point, as described below.

2.1. The review is exceptionally long. The authors don’t provide logical explanation and critical analysis of cited works.

Answer 2.1. We tried to remove some redundant parts of the manuscript. We also provided a more critical perspectives on works discussed in the text.

2.2. Abstract should be reduced and focused on the aim of review.

Answer 2.2. We shorted the abstract.

 

2.3. The first part is very boring since it reports well known concepts and the approach is scholastic.

Answer 2.3. We shorted the introduction by delating the most conventional concepts. However, we think that some basic notions are required to introduce and explain the topic to readers not specifically working on brewing sector.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved.

Back to TopTop