Next Article in Journal
Removal of Small-Molecular Byproducts from Crude Fructo-Oligosaccharide Preparations by Fermentation Using the Endospore-Forming Probiotic Bacillus coagulans
Next Article in Special Issue
Evolution of Aromatic Profile of Torulaspora delbrueckii Mixed Fermentation at Microbrewery Plant
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Ustilago Rabenhorstiana—An Alternative Natural Itaconic Acid Producer
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Identification of Yeasts with Mass Spectrometry during Wine Production

by Miroslava Kačániová 1,2,*, Simona Kunová 3, Jozef Sabo 1, Eva Ivanišová 4, Jana Žiarovská 5, Soňa Felsöciová 6 and Margarita Terentjeva 7
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 16 November 2019 / Revised: 30 December 2019 / Accepted: 3 January 2020 / Published: 7 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Yeast Biotechnology 3.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Kačániová et al. investigated yeast biodiversity in different grapes, wines and “federweisser”. The topic is interesting but it is too descriptive. Several criticisms are present. It is a too preliminary study; yeast isolates are not typed and further characterization is lacking. Very obvious data have been obtained, the presence of detected is well known. Strains differentiation would have been more appropriate in order to identify biotypes and highlight the biodiversity.

Minor points

Microorganisms should be reported in italics

Typing errors are present

References are not updated

Statistical analysis to better differentiate the samples

Author Response

The authors would like thank both reviewer for their valuable comments for improvements the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1:

Kačániová et al. investigated yeast biodiversity in different grapes, wines and “federweisser”. The topic is interesting but it is too descriptive. Several criticisms are present. It is a too preliminary study; yeast isolates are not typed and further characterization is lacking. Very obvious data have been obtained, the presence of detected is well known. Strains differentiation would have been more appropriate in order to identify biotypes and highlight the biodiversity.

 

Minor points

Minor points were changed.

Microorganisms should be reported in italics

Microorganisms were reported in italics.

 

Typing errors are present

Typing errors were corrected.

 

References are not updated

All references were checked and updated.

 

Statistical analysis to better differentiate the samples

Data with additional statistical analysis is included.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper should be improved prior acceptance. Several sentences are unclear or ambiguous. Some parts seem to be unlinked each other. See "Results and Discussion" section, for example.

Material and methods

Please, indicate if the wine collected  was  fermented with microbial starter

-line 74...how wine may be collected from Vitis vinifera?

pag 55-64 and 161-162, please reports in italics the name of yeast species

Line 66-68, please rewrite, bit unclear

Line 161-162..seem to be out of the contest (please, editing as well)

Line 174-183. Please rewrite, bit unclear. What do you intend as contaminant? Please specify

Line 185-192. Please rewrite in a proper way.

 

Author Response

The authors would like thank both reviewer for their valuable comments for improvements the manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

Paper should be improved prior acceptance. Several sentences are unclear or ambiguous. Some parts seem to be unlinked each other. See "Results and Discussion" section, for example.

The language and sentences were changed.

 

Material and methods

 

Please, indicate if the wine collected was fermented with microbial starter

Microbial starter was added.

 

-line 74...how wine may be collected from Vitis vinifera?

The sentence was corrected as “grape, federweiser from Vitis vinefera were collected”.

 

pag 55-64 and 161-162, please reports in italics the name of yeast species

All names of microorganisms were reported in italics.

 

Line 66-68, please rewrite, bit unclear

The sentence was rewritten.

 

Line 161-162.. seem to be out of the contest (please, editing as well)

The part was rewritten.

 

Line 174-183. Please rewrite, bit unclear. What do you intend as contaminant? Please specify

The part was rewritten.

 

Line 185-192. Please rewrite in a proper way.

The part was rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

paper has been improved

Author Response

Response to Academic Editor Comments

 

Point 1: Check the text for English grammatical errors (please consult a colleague with an English mother tongue or someone who is very fluent in English) and small typing errors such as line 28: fererweisser, line 40: Kloecker, ... 

English errors were changed with Track Changes function in Microsoft Word.

Point 2: Figure 1, 2 3: higher resolution figures should be provided.

 

Figure 1,2,3 were changed in different program.

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Back to TopTop