Thermotolerant Probiotic—The Potential of Improving the Survivability of Beneficial Bacteria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review explores the topic of thermotolerant probiotics, covering their heat-resistance mechanisms, adaptation methods, and applications in food industry. The authors synthesize a wide range of studies, highlighting the importance of heat-shock proteins (HSPs), membrane lipid adaptations, and stress preadaptation techniques. The inclusion of diverse methodologies (e.g., environmental stress, adaptive laboratory evolution, genetic modification) and their practical implications in industries such as dairy, bakery, and plant-based foods demonstrates a thorough understanding of the subject. The review could be valuable for researchers and industry professionals interested in probiotics, especially those focused on improving the survival of beneficial bacteria under heat stress.
Weaknesses and Suggestions for Revision:
- The term “thermotolerant” is used interchangeably with “thermophilic,” but these have distinct meanings (e.g., thermotolerant refers to survival under high temperatures, while thermophilic denotes optimal growth at high temperatures). This ambiguity may confuse readers.
- Figure 1: The benefits brought by using thermophilic probiotics in various food products are not clear and accurate enough in Figure 1.
- The authors are advised to thoroughly review the entire manuscript to address grammatical inconsistencies, structural ambiguities, and typographical errors, ensuring linguistic precision and logical coherence throughout the text.
Here’s some examples from the section 5. Conclusions with suggested revisions for clarity, grammar, and logical consistency:
Line 399: "technics" → Replace with "techniques" for academic consistency.
Line 407: "modify strains" → Revise to " genetically modified strains" for grammatical correctness.
Line 403: "this this" (repetition) → Remove redundant "this": "however, this refers...".
Line 406-407: "can be also identify" → Correct to "can also be identified".
Line 410: "should be confirm" → Revise to "should be confirmed".
Line 404-405: "the shelf life of the products can, as well as health benefits increase" → Rephrase for clarity: "the shelf life and health benefits of the products can be enhanced".
- References: Some citations lack page numbers or use inconsistent formats. Please standardize reference formats according to the journal’s guidelines.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for the detailed and constructive feedback. Your comments were highly valuable in improving the clarity, and quality of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response, outlining the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript and addressing each concern in detail.
With regards,
Dorota Zielińska
on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This review explores the topic of thermotolerant probiotics, covering their heat-resistance mechanisms, adaptation methods, and applications in food industry. The authors synthesize a wide range of studies, highlighting the importance of heat-shock proteins (HSPs), membrane lipid adaptations, and stress preadaptation techniques. The inclusion of diverse methodologies (e.g., environmental stress, adaptive laboratory evolution, genetic modification) and their practical implications in industries such as dairy, bakery, and plant-based foods demonstrates a thorough understanding of the subject. The review could be valuable for researchers and industry professionals interested in probiotics, especially those focused on improving the survival of beneficial bacteria under heat stress.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. We highly appreciate your review.
Weaknesses and Suggestions for Revision:
1. The term “thermotolerant” is used interchangeably with “thermophilic,” but these have distinct meanings (e.g., thermotolerant refers to survival under high temperatures, while thermophilic denotes optimal growth at high temperatures). This ambiguity may confuse readers.
Answer: Thank you. The Author agrees with the comment. Therefore we rearrange section 4 “Application of thermotolerant beneficial microorganisms in food technology and industry” adding the definition of thermotolerant microorganisms and examples of their use in food technology. In the further part of the chapter, we referred to thermophilic as well as thermotolerant microorganisms and discussed their role in food technology. We hope that this improvement meets Reviewer expectations. See Chapter 4 lines 269-278 and 381-420.
2. Figure 1: The benefits brought by using thermophilic probiotics in various food products are not clear and accurate enough in Figure 1.
Answer: The Figure 1 was changed according your remark. We try to underline and clarify the benefits brought by using thermophilic and thermotolerant probiotics in food technology. See Figure 1, line 425.
3. The authors are advised to thoroughly review the entire manuscript to address grammatical inconsistencies, structural ambiguities, and typographical errors, ensuring linguistic precision and logical coherence throughout the text.
Here’s some examples from the section 5. Conclusions with suggested revisions for clarity, grammar, and logical consistency:
Line 399: "technics" → Replace with "techniques" for academic consistency.
Line 407: "modify strains" → Revise to " genetically modified strains" for grammatical correctness.
Line 403: "this this" (repetition) → Remove redundant "this": "however, this refers...".
Line 406-407: "can be also identify" → Correct to "can also be identified".
Line 410: "should be confirm" → Revise to "should be confirmed".
Line 404-405: "the shelf life of the products can, as well as health benefits increase" → Rephrase for clarity: "the shelf life and health benefits of the products can be enhanced".
Answer: Thank you for your deep analysis and significant tips. We performed a thorough linguistic analysis of the whole text of manuscript to eliminate any grammatical and stylistic errors. We made also the corrections in the section 5. Conclusions. See lines 442-467.
4. References: Some citations lack page numbers or use inconsistent formats. Please standardize reference formats according to the journal’s guidelines.
Answer: Thank you for the remark. The references section was improved according to the Reviewer suggestion and Journal’s guidelines. See lines 477-647.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 50: in this form of the sentence, it turns out that S. boulardi is a lactic acid bacterium
Line 58: Is this a high enough concentration of probiotics in the product? The bacteria need to reach the large intestine in very high concentrations to have a positive effect on the health of the consumer, and due to stressful conditions in the gastrointestinal tract there will certainly be some losses, so it is desirable that this number in the product be higher. Also, the desired number is not the same for each strain.
Line 136: Although bifidobacteria are phylogenetically distinct from lactic acid bacteria, we include them in this group because of their lactic acid production.
Line 148: reference 19,20,21,22 can be summarized as 19-22
Lines 205, 214 and 226: et.al should be corrected as et al.
The temperature should be corrected through the manuscript, °C should be separated from the numbers.
The references in the text are not arranged in order, the problem arises with the table. The same thing is with page numbers.
The references should be written according the instructions for authors.
In the conclusion authors talk about probiotics in meat, but this is not covered in the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for the detailed and constructive feedback. Your comments were highly valuable in improving the clarity, and quality of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response, outlining the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript and addressing each concern in detail.
With regards,
Dorota Zielińska
on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line 50: in this form of the sentence, it turns out that S. boulardi is a lactic acid bacterium
Answer: Thank you for your attention. We agree that the combination of sentences could have been confusing. We are therefore rearranging the sentence to clarify its meaning. See line 49-50.
Line 58: Is this a high enough concentration of probiotics in the product? The bacteria need to reach the large intestine in very high concentrations to have a positive effect on the health of the consumer, and due to stressful conditions in the gastrointestinal tract there will certainly be some losses, so it is desirable that this number in the product be higher. Also, the desired number is not the same for each strain.
Answer: Thank you, we agree. We corrected the therapeutic dose of probiotic and added the specific comment. See lines 58-60.
Line 136: Although bifidobacteria are phylogenetically distinct from lactic acid bacteria, we include them in this group because of their lactic acid production.
Answer: Yes, we agree! The correction has been done. See line 139.
Line 148: reference 19,20,21,22 can be summarized as 19-22
Answer: Thank you! The correction has been done. See line 150
Lines 205, 214 and 226: et.al should be corrected as et al.
Answer: Thank you! The correction has been done. See line 208, 217, and 229.
The temperature should be corrected through the manuscript, °C should be separated from the numbers.
Answer: Thank you! The correction has been done in the whole manuscript.
The references in the text are not arranged in order, the problem arises with the table. The same thing is with page numbers.
Answer: Thank you! The correction has been done.
The references should be written according the instructions for authors.
Answer: Thank you! The correction has been done. See lines 477-647.
In the conclusion authors talk about probiotics in meat, but this is not covered in the text.
Answer: We added the example of use the thermotolerant probiotic in meat technology in the main text of manuscript. See lines 397-403.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered all the questions and made the amendments to the manuscript following the provided suggestions. Therefore, the overall quality of the revised manuscript has been improved.
