Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Diverse Carbon Sources and Cultivation Conditions for Enhanced Growth and Lipid and Medium-Chain Fatty Acid (MCFA) Production by Mucor circinelloides
Next Article in Special Issue
Production and Purification of l-lactic Acid in Lab and Pilot Scales Using Sweet Sorghum Juice
Previous Article in Journal
The Management of Compounds that Influence Human Health in Modern Winemaking from an HACCP Point of View
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simultaneous Bioconversion of Gelatinized Starchy Waste from the Rice Noodle Manufacturing Process to Lactic Acid and Maltose-Forming α-Amylase by Lactobacillus plantarum S21, Using a Low-Cost Medium
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Capnophilic Lactic Fermentation from Thermotoga neapolitana: A Resourceful Pathway to Obtain Almost Enantiopure L-lactic Acid

Fermentation 2019, 5(2), 34;
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Piotr Patelski
Fermentation 2019, 5(2), 34;
Received: 28 February 2019 / Revised: 3 April 2019 / Accepted: 6 April 2019 / Published: 11 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lactic Acid Fermentation and the Colours of Biotechnology)

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript needs intensive improvement. All my suggestions and errors that are found are signed in your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciated the reviewer’s suggestions. We have made every change she/he required.

Detailed answers to the major issues are reported below:


REVIEW: The title should be re-edited for this form of a manuscript or necessary data about fermentation process should be added.

ANSWER: To improve the manuscript, additional data about fermentation process, bacterial growth and organic acid production were added in the paper.


REVIEW: I suggest to use the names of genera: Lactococcus spp. and Lactobacillus spp.

ANSWER: The names of genera (Lactococcus spp. and Lactobacillus spp.) were used to indicate LAB, as suggested.

REVIEW: It would be better present potential of L-enantiomer production and possibilities of using it. ANSWER: we agree with the reviewer. We are asking to include this work in a special issue about lactic acid and, we are sure that other papers will be committed on this point. On the other hand, we would like to keep the original focus on identification of the lactic acid in T. neapolitana and the potential of CLF as new pathway to exploit for this aim.

REVIEW: rather knowledge about the forms of lactic acid produced by T. neapolitana.

ANSWER: We have slightly modified the sentence as suggested from the review.


All minor mistakes (e.g. font for protein, abbreviation) were revised according to the review’s comments. English usage has also been refined.

Reviewer 2 Report

It was a pleasure to read such brief but sufficiently enough manuscript describing the novel and fresh science with properly described experiments and short but essential discussion part.

I've met some editorial mistakes (line 81, line 166) so You should carefully check the manuscript for more such mistakes - if are.  
In my opinion "introduction" part from Discussion (lines 155-159) should be removed since there are almost the same as in the Introduction

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the nice comment. We read carefully the manuscript as suggested to eliminate typos and we have slightly modified the first part of the Discussion (lines 155-159) to avoid repetitions with the Introduction.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your corrections have improved this manusctript significantly. However, some issues should be corrected.

My suggestions are in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Dr. Kaitlyn Wu

we thank the reviewer for the time dedicated to our manuscript. Every suggested revision has been done. In Table 1, we added the information on biomass production in g/L (dry biomass) as requested by the reviewer.

Back to TopTop