Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting but needs some improvement that are in the text. Also, some paragraphs are too long and their sentences need to be cited; contrary, they could be considered as plagiarism. Then, I suggest rewriting these paragraphs.

I suggest including supplementary material

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for managing the review process and for providing the constructive and detailed feedback from the three reviewers on our manuscript, "Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability." The comments have been highly instrumental in enhancing the scientific depth, methodological clarity, and overall structure of our work. Please find the detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers. All revisions and responses are clearly highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, while track changes have also been used for your convenience. Below is a detailed, point-by-point response structured by the reviewer.

General Response to All Reviewers

1. Structural and Scientific Depth: We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve the logical flow, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion sections, and to minimize descriptive content, focusing on the interpretation of our results and their significance.
2. Clarity and Citation Integrity: We reviewed all paragraphs, ensuring that every scientific statement is supported by appropriate, recent citations, thereby eliminating redundancy and avoiding the risk of self-plagiarism.
3. Data Consistency: We implemented consistency in numerical presentation (using decimal points instead of commas) and statistical notation (using consistent italic p) throughout the text and tables.
4. Supplementary Material: As suggested, supplementary material has been added to provide additional context, such as standard curves for bacterial growth.

 

2. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Line 57: The Data does not show. Add supplementary material.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and supplementary material has been added to provide additional context.

Comment 2: Figure 2: Improve as a curve.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been revised as requested. Figure 2 was updated to display the data as a curve to enhance interpretability, as the reviewer suggested.

Comment 3: Line 278: Table numeric format correction.

Response 3: The manuscript was revised accordingly

Comment 4: Line 279: Add statistical analysis numbers.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been revised as recommended. We have maintained the information table based on the statistical analysis.

Comment 5: Line 388: Add bibliographic citation.

Response 5: The manuscript was revised accordingly by adding the corresponding citation

Comment 6: Line 401: Add bibliographic citation.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been revised as requested by adding the corresponding citation.

Comment 7: Line 428: Like later; streamline.

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. We have summarized the lines in the manuscript as requested.

Comment 8: Line 488: Text highlighted in red.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been revised as requested. The red-highlighted text at Line 488 was corrected to standard text.

Comment 9: Line 492: Text highlighted in red.

Response 9: The manuscript was revised accordingly

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lines 52-54: Please add corresponding references to support the viewpoints, including herbs, vegetables, etc.
2. Lines 82-85: I am confusedabout explaining the principle of honey production by bees is relevant to this article.
3. The introduction section fails to adequately address the existing shortcomings in current research, necessitating supplementary elaboration to better justify the significance of this manuscript.
4. Section 2.4: It is necessary to determine whether the addition amount of the starter culture is consistent across different groups. Were the probiotics added additionally? What is the proportion?
5. Please explain how the survival rate of bacteria can be used to confirm its nutritional, sensory, and functional characteristics
6. Generally, the separately set discussion section should be written in concise language to discuss the research findings in the manuscript. Please remove unnecessary content in this section to enhance logical coherence and better support the objectives.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for managing the review process and for providing the constructive and detailed feedback from the three reviewers on our manuscript, "Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability." The comments have been highly instrumental in enhancing the scientific depth, methodological clarity, and overall structure of our work. Please find the detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers. All revisions and responses are clearly highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, while track changes have also been used for your convenience. Below is a detailed, point-by-point response structured by the reviewer.

General Response to All Reviewers

1. Structural and Scientific Depth: We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve logical flow, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion sections, to minimize descriptive content and focus on the interpretation of our results and their significance.
2. Clarity and Citation Integrity: We reviewed all paragraphs, ensuring every scientific statement is supported by appropriate and recent citations, thereby eliminating redundancy and avoiding any risk of self-plagiarism.
3. Data Consistency: We implemented consistency in numerical presentation (using decimal points instead of commas) and statistical notation (using consistent italic p) throughout the text and tables.
4. Supplementary Material: As suggested, supplementary material has been added to provide additional context, such as standard curves for bacterial growth.

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: Lines 52-54: Add corresponding references.

Response 1: The corresponding references for Lines 52-54 were added to the manuscript as requested.

Comment 2: Lines 82-85: Relevance of honey production explanation.

Response 2: The description and information about honeydew have been modified.

Comment 3: Intro lacks discussion of the shortcomings of current research.

Response 3: The introduction was adjusted in accordance with this recommendation.

Comment 4: Section 2.4: Starter culture consistency and probiotic proportion.

Response 4: Adjusted accordingly in the manuscript by adding “The inoculation level for both the starter culture (YOFLEX) and the probiotic consortium (VEGE 092) was standardized across all treatments. A fixed inoculum of 2% (≈1 × 10⁸ CFU/mL) was added based on the total fermentation volume (1000 mL). In the bio-yogurt treatment (T1), both the starter culture and the probiotic were incorporated at 2%, whereas the control yogurt (T2) received only the starter culture at 2%. No additional probiotics beyond this standardized concentration were added, ensuring consistency in culture proportion and allowing valid comparisons between treatments.

Comment 5: Explain the link between the survival rate and the characteristics.

Response 5: Adjusted accordingly in the manuscript by adding “The survival rate of the probiotic and starter cultures is directly linked to the nutritional, sensory, and functional characteristics of the bio-yogurt. Higher bacterial viability enhances the production of organic acids, exopolysaccharides, and bioactive metabolites, which influence product acidity, texture, antioxidant activity, and overall stability. These microbial-derived compounds improve viscosity, water-holding capacity, and flavor development (data not shown), while supporting the retention of phenolics and carotenoids during storage (Figure 3). Therefore, maintaining high viable cell counts is essential not only for ensuring probiotic functionality but also for preserving the technological and nutritional quality of the final product [34].”

Comment 6: Discussion is concise and removes unnecessary content.

Response 6: The Discussion section was condensed, and unnecessary content was removed to improve conciseness as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the formulation and characterization of a bio-yogurt enriched with carrot, mango, and honeydew honey as natural sources of provitamin A carotenoids and prebiotic fibers. The topic is timely and relevant to the growing field of functional dairy foods. The experimental design is sound overall, and the results are presented clearly. However, the manuscript would benefit from improvements in structure, precision of data presentation, statistical reporting, and scientific depth, particularly in the Discussion section.

 

Abstract

L20–24: Statistical notation inconsistent: use p < 0.05 (italic p) consistently.

L25–26: Provide the baseline carotenoid concentration to better quantify the “increase.”

L27–29: The conclusion should be more specific (e.g., “demonstrated the synergistic role of plant bioactives in maintaining probiotic viability” instead of general “demonstrates the potential…”

 

Introduction

L35–44: Add more recent references (2022–2024) on plant-based fermented dairy alternatives.

L63–68: The statement about carrot fiber increasing gel viscoelasticity needs a reference to rheological data.

L74–77: The definition of honeydew honey could be shortened; move the ecological description (L77–81) to Discussion or Supplementary Information.

L85–88: Clearly state hypotheses and study objectives (currently phrased descriptively). Suggest adding: “We hypothesized that the synergistic combination of carotenoid-rich plant substrates and honeydew honey would enhance both probiotic viability and antioxidant capacity during storage.”

 

Materials and Methods

L124–125: “blanching (80°C for 15 seconds)” → should read “blanched at 80 °C for 15 s.”

L147–148: Clarify if inoculum percentages were based on total fermentation volume or milk volume.

L230–236: Indicate software version of R and packages used (e.g., “R v4.3.1 using ggplot2, dplyr, and agricolae”).

L233–235: Explain why both ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis were used—were some datasets nonparametric?

 

Results

L243–244: Include significant difference indicators (e.g., letters or p values) directly in Table 1.

L246–251: Provide numeric fermentation rate data (ΔpH/hour) to support statements of “delay.”

L258–260: Reword to avoid redundancy: “face challenges in mimicking and improving...” could be shortened.

L275–280: Units inconsistent (e.g., “4,1±0.04a” → “4.10 ± 0.04 a”). Use decimal points, not commas.

 

Discussion

L307–316: Overly descriptive; focus more on interpreting how fiber–probiotic interactions influenced observed viability trends.

L370–383: Improve flow; the paragraph reads like a textbook explanation of yogurt fermentation. Summarize briefly, then relate to results.

L445–447: Duplication of information on melezitose effects (previously discussed in L391–397). Consolidate.

L485–497: Better quantify carotenoid loss (%) and relate to potential oxidation mechanisms.

L519–524: Add mechanistic insight on how organic acids interact with phenolics (possible copigmentation or antioxidant regeneration).

 

Conclusions

 

L525–537: Condense to 5–6 lines. Avoid repeating data (e.g., CFU values already presented). Focus on novelty and application potential.

L541–549: Mention sensory analysis results if available; if not, clarify that sensory evaluation was not performed.

L551–553: Replace “promising applications” with a more objective phrasing: “suggests feasibility for industrial application pending sensory and shelf-life validation.”

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for managing the review process and for providing the constructive and detailed feedback from the three reviewers on our manuscript, "Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability." The comments have been highly instrumental in enhancing the scientific depth, methodological clarity, and overall structure of our work. Please find the detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers. All revisions and responses are clearly highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, while track changes have also been used for your convenience. Below is a detailed, point-by-point response structured by the reviewer.

General Response to All Reviewers

1. Structural and Scientific Depth: We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve logical flow, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion sections, to minimize descriptive content and focus on the interpretation of our results and their significance.
2. Clarity and Citation Integrity: We reviewed all paragraphs, ensuring every scientific statement is supported by appropriate and recent citations, thereby eliminating redundancy and avoiding any risk of self-plagiarism.
3. Data Consistency: We implemented consistency in numerical presentation (using decimal points instead of commas) and statistical notation (using consistent italic p) throughout the text and tables.
4. Supplementary Material: As suggested, supplementary material has been added to provide additional context, such as standard curves for bacterial growth.

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer 3

Comment 1: Improve structure, precision, and statistical reporting.

Response 1: Structure, precision, and statistical reporting in the manuscript were improved as requested by the reviewer.

Comment 2: L20–24 statistical notations.

Response 2: Updated as requested

Comment 3: L25–26 baseline carotenoid concentration.

Response 3: Updated as requested by adding “Significant increases (p < 0.05) in total carotenoid content were observed, rising from an initial concentration of 2.15 µg β-carotene/g—derived from the carrot pulp incorporated into the yogurt at the beginning of fermentation—to 3.96 µg β-carotene/g. This highlights the synergistic effect between lactic acid bacteria and the plant-derived bioactive compounds.”

Comment 4: L27–29 improve the specificity of the conclusion.

Response 4: Updated as requested by adding “These findings demonstrate the synergistic role of plant-derived carotenoids, prebiotic fibers, and honeydew oligosaccharides in maintaining probiotic viability and enhancing antioxidant stability during fermentation and refrigerated storage.”

Comment 5: Add recent references.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion to include more recent references. Updated citations will be added where appropriate while retaining relevant foundational references.

Comment 6: Add reference for rheological data.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion regarding recent references. Updated citations will be added where appropriate while retaining relevant foundational references.

Comment 7: Shorten the honeydew description.

Response 7: Updated as requested.

Comment 8: State hypotheses and objectives.

Response 8: Updated as requested by adding “This research aimed to evaluate the synergistic interactions among vegetable substrates (carrot and mango), probiotics, commercial prebiotic fibers, and honeydew honey on the biotechnological, physicochemical, and antioxidant properties of bio-yogurt during both the fermentation phase and refrigerated storage.”

Comment 9: Fix blanching wording.

Response 9: Updated as requested. “Blanching was performed to inactivate endogenous enzymes and preserve the color and quality of the vegetable matrix.”

Comment 10: Clarify inoculum percentages.

Response 10: The inoculum percentages were clarified in the manuscript as per the reviewer's suggestion.

Comment 11: Add software version.

Response 11: The software version used in the analysis was specified in the manuscript as requested.

Comment 12: Explain the use of ANOVA vs Kruskal-Wallis.

Response 12: "We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the statistical analysis. The mention of the Kruskal–Wallis test in the previous version of the manuscript was an oversight on our part. Because the data met the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity, the appropriate method for comparing treatments was a one-way ANOVA. Therefore, all statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, and the manuscript has been corrected accordingly."

Comment 13: Add significance indicators.

Response 13: Significance indicators were added to the relevant results in the manuscript as requested.

Comment 14: Provide numeric fermentation rate data.

Response 14: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include numerical data on fermentation rates. We have now incorporated approximate numeric values derived from the growth curves into the Results section to provide a clearer quantitative description of fermentation performance. These values include log CFU/mL at each sampling point and estimated exponential phase growth rates.

Comment 15: Units inconsistent.

Response 15: Units throughout the manuscript were made consistent as requested by the reviewer.

Comment 16: Improve fiber–probiotic interactions discussion.

Response 16: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we expanded the Discussion to more clearly explain the mechanisms involved in fiber–probiotic interactions. The revised section now describes how prebiotic fibers provide fermentable substrates, enhance environmental stability, and improve probiotic viability during fermentation and storage. This new paragraph has been added to the Discussion section following the sentence describing the combined effect of vegetable substrates, fibers, and honeydew honey.

Comment 17: Improve flow in fermentation explanation.

Response 17: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We revised the fermentation process description to improve clarity, coherence, and logical flow. The updated text provides smoother transitions between stages of acidification and metabolic activity and clarifies the role of the different substrates in fermentation dynamics. The revised paragraph has been incorporated into the Results section (Fermentation Kinetics subsection).

Comment 18: Avoid duplication of melezitose info.

Response 18: The manuscript was updated as requested to eliminate duplication of information on melezitose.

Comment 19: Quantify carotenoid loss.

Response 19: Thank you for this comment. We quantified carotenoid loss during refrigerated storage using the concentrations shown in Figure Xc. For T1, β-carotene remained stable, with no measurable loss between day 0 (4.00 mg/g) and day 21 (4.00 mg/g). For T2, β-carotene decreased slightly from 3.80 mg/g to 3.70 mg/g, corresponding to a 2.6% reduction. These numerical values have now been added to the Results section.

Comment 20: Add mechanistic insight on organic acids–phenolics.

Response 20: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have now expanded the Discussion section to include a mechanistic explanation of the interactions between organic acids produced during fermentation and plant-derived phenolic compounds. Specifically, we describe how pH reduction and organic acid metabolism can promote the release, solubilization, and biotransformation of phenolic structures, potentially enhancing antioxidant activity. This revised paragraph also integrates evidence from previous studies on phenolic conversions driven by lactic acid bacteria and on the synergistic effects between phenolics and organic acids. The new text has been added to Lines 543-554 and is supported by the following references, already included in the manuscript: Filannino et al. (2014) [Ref. 28] and Zhang (2023) [Ref. 37].

Comment 21: Condense conclusions.

Response 21: Updated as requested.

Comment 22: Mention sensory analysis.

Response 22: Thank you for this observation. Sensory analysis was indeed performed as part of the broader research project. However, to ensure a clear focus on the biotechnological, physicochemical, and functional aspects of the fermented dairy beverage, and considering journal length and scope constraints, these sensory results will be presented in a separate manuscript currently in preparation. We clarified this in the revised version to avoid misunderstandings and to indicate that sensory evaluation constitutes an independent line of analysis within the project.

Comment 23: More objective phrasing for re-applications.

Response 23: Updated as requested.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Fermentation.

Author Response

December 10, 2025

Subject: Response to Reviewers – Manuscript Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability

Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability.

1. Summary

We sincerely thank both reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive suggestions, which have improved the scientific clarity and overall quality of the article. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all comments provided. Below, we address each point in detail and indicate the revisions made.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2

• General evaluation: The reviewer notes that the manuscript “has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication.
• Response: We appreciate this positive assessment.

Specific items marked “Can be improved”: Introduction, Methods, and Conclusions.

We reviewed the areas indicated and implemented targeted improvements:

• Introduction: We refined the background to more clearly delineate the scientific gap the study addresses and updated references where appropriate.
• We enhanced the methods to ensure reproducibility, using precise wording for fermentation and analytical techniques.
• As above, we simplified the Conclusions, cut verbosity, and better aligned them with the results.
• As noted, we improved the quality and formatting of all figures and ensured that the text matched the visuals.

Final Statement

We believe the revisions have greatly strengthened the manuscript. We thank the reviewers and hope the improved version meets publication standards for Fermentation.

Sincerely,

Consuelo Díaz Moreno

Correspondence author

On behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Check the beginning of Line 74 and 85.

Delete the point in Line 618.

Simplify the conclusions, too tedious.

 

Author Response

December 10, 2025

Subject: Response to Reviewers – Manuscript Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability

Bio-yogurt enriched with provitamin A carotenoids and fiber: bioactive properties and stability.

1. Summary

We sincerely thank both reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive suggestions, which have improved the scientific clarity and overall quality of the article. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all comments provided. Below, we address each point in detail and indicate the revisions made.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3

Comment 1: Check the beginning of Lines 74 and 85.

Response 1: We reviewed Lines 74 and 85 and improved sentence clarity. Minor grammar changes now ensure the background flows logically.

Comment 2: Delete the point in Line 618.

Response 2: The point in Line 618 was removed. This sentence now matches the discussion preceding it.

Comment 3: Simplify the conclusions; they are too tedious.

Response 3: The conclusions section has been fully revised. We streamlined the narrative to emphasize the study's main findings and contributions, avoiding redundancy. The updated version presents a concise interpretation of the results, highlights the relevance of carotenoid–fiber interactions in functional dairy systems, and avoids speculative statements.

Comment 4: Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented? –

Response 4: We improved the resolution and formatting of all figures. Axis labels, legends, and color contrast were refined to ensure readability and consistency with the journal’s formatting guidelines. The descriptions of each figure in the Results section were also adjusted for greater clarity and alignment with the figures' visual information.

Final Statement

We believe the revisions have greatly strengthened the manuscript. We thank the reviewers and hope the improved version meets publication standards for Fermentation.

Sincerely,

Consuelo Díaz Moreno

Correspondence author

On behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf