Cytoprotective Effects of Lactobacilli on Mouse Epithelial Cells during Salmonella Infection
, Xintao Gao 2,†, Jianwei Zhang 3, Lijun Shi 1, Mingyan Wang 1, Ming Li 1, Yajie Yin 4, Shaohan Li 1, Xiaodong Cui 3, Xinlei Yan 5, Min Yue 6, Hefei Wen 7,* and Tong Qin 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors investigated the probiotic properties of several Lactobaccilus strains isolated from dog feces using growth analysis, biochemical assays, and gene expression analysis.
Overall the authors have conducted a detailed study and presented convincing data that supports the conclusions. I have a few comments that the authors should consider addressing in order to strengthen the manuscript:
- At the end of the “Introduction”, the authors state that “.. aim of this study was to assess probiotic potential of dog isolated Lactobacilli ( fermentum, L. acidophilus) to be used in dog feedings.” (Lines 93-94). However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the Abstract. The aim of the study should be clearly mentioned in the Abstract.
- The abstract should include the origin of the strains (line 25) and the host organism of tissue(s) used for the assays (line 27)
- Define LAB agar (line 100), MRS medium (line 103), and LB medium (line 108).
- For “Materials and Methods”, in certain sections authors have included details such as how viable counts were measured, whereas in other sections these have not been included. Please consistently include details throughout the methods section.
- For all graphs please show error bars in both directions.
- For the “Results” section, please include more details about observed data. For example, for lysozyme tolerance assays shown in Figure 1, please include average cell viability counts with standard deviation for the different strains and time points. Comparison of data at different time points for different strains, for example indicating fold differences, should also be included.
- Lines 262-265: Images of cultures or some other form of data showing difference in exopolysaccharide production should be included.
- The manuscript needs to be checked for grammatical and sentence construction accuracy
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: At the end of the “Introduction”, the authors state that “. aim of this study was to assess probiotic potential of dog isolated Lactobacilli ( fermentum, L. acidophilus) to be used in dog feedings.” (Lines 93-94). However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the Abstract. The aim of the study should be clearly mentioned in the Abstract.
Response 1: The aim of the study has been mentioned in the Abstract (line 25, 26, 27, in revised manuscript)
Point 2: The abstract should include the origin of the strains (line 25) and the host organism of tissue(s) used for the assays (line 27).
Response 2: The origin of the strains (line 26, in revised manuscript) and the host organism of tissue(s) used for the assays (line 29, in revised manuscript)
Point 3: Define LAB agar (line 100), MRS medium (line 103), and LB medium (line 108).
Response 3: LAB agar (line 103, in revised manuscript), MRS medium (line 106, in revised manuscript), and LB medium (line 112, in revised manuscript) has been defined.
Point 4: For “Materials and Methods”, in certain sections authors have included details such as how viable counts were measured, whereas in other sections these have not been included. Please consistently include details throughout the methods section.
Response 4: The detail of how to measure the bacterial viable count has been added in Materials and Methods section
Point 5: For all graphs please show error bars in both directions.
Response 5: The error bars has been shown in both directions in all graphs of whole manuscript
Point 6: For the “Results” section, please include more details about observed data. For example, for lysozyme tolerance assays shown in Figure 1, please include average cell viability counts with standard deviation for the different strains and time points. Comparison of data at different time points for different strains, for example indicating fold differences, should also be included.
Response 6: In results section more detailed has been added. The percentage and viable count with standard deviation of bacteria has been mentioned in different assays (including lysozyme, pH, bile and simulated conditions of GIT) at different time points.
Point 7: Lines 262-265: Images of cultures or some other form of data showing difference in exopolysaccharide production should be included.
Response 7: N/A
Point 8: The manuscript needs to be checked for grammatical and sentence construction accuracy.
Response 8: The manuscript has been checked for grammatical and sentence construction accuracy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The title entitled 'Cytoprotective effects of Lactobacilli on mouse epithelial cells during Salmonella infection' has been interesting in the perspective of the increase in AMR. I have gone through the manuscript and given comments in the manuscript itself. My general observation was that the work was carried out sufficiently to be published, However, I felt that English writing was very poor which needs to be corrected as I mentioned/corrected.
Specific observations are indicated in the manuscript itself.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comment
Point 1: The title entitled 'Cytoprotective effects of Lactobacilli on mouse epithelial cells during Salmonella infection' has been interesting in the perspective of the increase in AMR. I have gone through the manuscript and given comments in the manuscript itself. My general observation was that the work was carried out sufficiently to be published, However, I felt that English writing was very poor which needs to be corrected as I mentioned/corrected.
Specific observations are indicated in the manuscript itself.
Response 1: The English writing of manuscript has been corrected according to your valuable comments and suggestions.
