Analysis of Composition, Antioxidation, and Immunoregulation for Exopolysaccharide Produced by Dellaglioa algida

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 1-4 please change the whole sentence. 

Abstract need to rewrite.

Line 32-37 need more information

Introduction is too long and less information. please concise. 

Figure 4 do you copy the picture ? we need original. 

Figure 6 & 7 need figure little explanation and scale bar.

#Important note please check the figure inside letter. organism name always small. its tough to read. please also maintain the same front all time. 

#Conclusion is look like result. Please rewrite again. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your evaluation on our paper and providing us with these helpful comments and suggestions. We have seriously considered these comments and suggestions, and carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper the biological activity of EPS (epoxypolysaccharides) produced by Del. Algida, a low-temperature-resistant Lactobacillus isolated from vacuum-frozen beef in recent decades, was studied in detail.

The composition of epoxypolysaccharides produced by Del. Algida, the antioxidation effect as well as the immunoregulation properties were assessed by using several methods such as Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), UV spectroscopy, gel permeation chromatography (GPC), HPLC, and scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Observations

The novelty of the paper should be better shown in the paper.

 Some abbreviations were not defined at their first use such as:  iNOS/NO or ROS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your evaluation on our paper and providing us with these helpful comments and suggestions. We have seriously considered these comments and suggestions, and carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires immediate revision to address the following factors:

1. Identification of metabolites could be vital if mass spectrometry and NMR; why did the authors not conduct an analysis using these techniques?

2. provide the rationale of this research and hypothesis 

3. Methods need to be fully explained. For antioxidant assays (DPPH, ABTS, and OH radical scavenging assays need to be improved. Cite the following article: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28186703. HPLC method is correctly reported regarding column and gradient. flow, LC conditions, etc. Please provide details.

 

4. results and discussion could be improved, and the flow of the discussion could be improved.

Cite the following articles

1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134140

2. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffnut.2022.1073071

3. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmicb.2022.903363

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to be improved.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your evaluation on our paper and providing us with these helpful comments and suggestions. We have seriously considered these comments and suggestions, and carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 7 scale bar is too small.

Figure 11 why you use error bar. Right now it is not acceptable. You need to show every dot. Please change.

Figure 12 and 13 same 

Figure 14 & 16 no scale bar.

Figure 15 & 17 & 22 same error bar. 

Why you wrote result and discussion together ? Please explain otherwise separate it. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

We would like to thank you for your evaluation on our paper and providing us with these helpful comments and suggestions again. We have seriously considered these comments and suggestions, and carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all of my comments—no further changes are required.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3：

We would like to thank you again for your efforts and time on our manuscript.

Best wishes.