Potential of a Techno-Functional Sourdough and Its Application in Sugar-Reduced Soft Buns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript -1531788

The manuscript evaluates the LAB strains Leuconostoc citreum DCM65 14 (mannitol, exopolysaccharide producing, antifungal activity) and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 15 subsp. plantarum MA418 (amylolytic activity) and their potential as single or co-culture starters in 16 sourdough fermented buns containing different sugar levels (control 9% and reduced 0, 3, 6%). The effects on cell counts, pH development, and organic acids were determined before and after sourdough fermentation (30°C, 24 h), and buns' physical properties (colour, volume, pore structure, and texture) 19 produced thereof were determined after baking. The individual effects were satisfactorily evaluated, according to the normality test results. Also, the presentation is correct and the format adequate.

In this referee's opinion, the individual analysis of the effects shows only a partial view of the picture since several could be related. Therefore, an additional multivariate analysis of data could be convenient to reveal these relationships.

Besides, the manuscript describes the effects exhaustively, but readers would acknowledge a more extensive discussion. After reading, the overall impression is mainly related to the detailed exposition of the results, otherwise clearly shown individually in the different graphs and Figures, but not regarding the discussion. Probably a more substantial debate would emphasize the work's contribution and be helpful for its adequate situation in context.

Minor comments

Usually, Figures should follow the order of appearance in the text. However, Figure 5 is mentioned several times before its ubication in the manuscript.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisione Fermentation

The work deals with the use of selected lactic acid bacteria for the production of sugar reduced buns. The topic is interesting and experimental design well conducted. However, in my opinion the discussion can be improved in order to better explain some results since many aspects were evaluated.

Major points:

Table 3 – Apart, from the quantitative determination, did you perform some sensory analysis to evaluate the for instance the sweetness of buns with mannitol and less sucrose? Otherwise, I don’t think it is an useful information to report mannitol and fructose content if not somehow evaluated for buns properties.

In my opinion, the discussion generally lacks of some comments of effect the mixed sourdough, most of the discussion refers to the single inoculum. Moreover, do you have an idea of the concentrations of Lc. citreum and Lpb. plantarum in the mixed inoculum?

Minor points

Intro

Line 66 Not all the genus possesses amylolytic activities

M&M

Line 108 How did you determine the LAB initial concentration?

Line 165 What is TA? Is it the dough yield?

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I think that this work is interesting and the manuscript is well written:

I have some questions and suggestions that in my opinion could increase the comprehension and overall quality of the manuscript:

• the meaning of "clean label" is under debate, however is usually used for products without additives and where only "natural ingredients" were used. In my opinion, it is not correct to use these terms for product made using a reducer content of sugar (line 34)
• please check the E number of preservatives and correct the name of salt and the correspondent E-number
• please add a paragraph in which you can explain the selection process based on amylolytic activity (strain, methods, etc.)
• please add "per liter" in the formulation of media and buffers
• please explain why you used a temperature of 80°C for the extraction of organic acids. These are usually extracted using ice or low temperature considering their volatility
• Why only L was evaluated in the color analysis? Is it possible to add also a* and b* to complete the analysis?
• Please control that the name of  starter is defined always before the strain code. Is it possible to use also abbreviation (e.g. DCM65b to define buns made with sourdough fermented by L. citreum DCM65)
• It is possible to check the correlation among specific volume, buns height and slice area. Sometimes these results seems not to be in accordance, please try to explain 

 

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further comments. However, some presentation problems are still observed (e.g. removed comments still present the references . So a revision after accepting the changes would still be convenient. Besides, since there is only one table as supplementary material, maybe could be introduced in the text or substituted by a graph also included in text. But this is just a suggestion

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors improved the manuscript according to the suggestions. However in my opinion a two way ANOVA considering as factor the inoculum and sugar content was more suitable to analyze and discuss the obtained data rather than the pearson correlation, since the aim of the work was to evaluated the effect of the inoculum and the sugar content.

Table S1 caption should be improved.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript, which is, in my opinion, interesting and well written

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx