Flavor Characteristics of Navel Orange Wine Fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel Yeast SY
, Wenliang Xiang 1,2, Ting Cai 1,2 and Jie Tang 1,2,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article focuses on the flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by mixed fermentation of brewing yeast S. cerevisiae SC-125 and 67 Angel yeast SY.
Despite the manuscript contains novel aspects it presents some criticisms for publication in Fermentation.
- - Why were used brewing yeast strains in this study instead of oenological yeast strains?
- - Please supply the main analytical parameters of navel oranges used (°Brix, pH, total acidity…).
- - I suggest to add details about the pectinase used (name of the commercial preparation, supplier, dosage…).
- - In section 2.2 authors should better describe the procedure applied for the inoculum preparation.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your kind letter to our manuscript ID “fermentation-2614394”.
We would like to thank Fermentation for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript entitled “Flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY” Yingyue Zhang1, Hong Ye1, Yuting Zou1, Zihan He1, Bitao Xu1, Su Wang1, Chuanning Peng1, Xuerui Zhou1, Qing Zhang1,2, Wenliang Xiang1,2, Cai Ting1,2, Jie Tang1,2,3*. All changes made to the manuscript are in revision mode. We hope the new manuscript will meet your journal’s standard.
Reviewer #1 comments:
The article focuses on the flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by mixed fermentation of brewing yeast S. cerevisiae SC-125 and 67 Angel yeast SY.
Despite the manuscript contains novel aspects it presents some criticisms for publication in Fermentation.
1-Comment: Why were used brewing yeast strains in this study instead of oenological yeast strains?
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Based on several reference sources, yeast strains used in grape wine production are generally described as "oenological yeast strains," while the production of other fruit-based beverages also employs "brewing yeast strains." The cited references are provided below. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
Wu, D.H.; Wu, Y.; Gu, Z.X.; Chen, X.G.; Liu, H.; Lu, J.; Xie, G.F. Multi-step screening of suitable Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for lemon wine brewing. Food Bioscience. 2023, 56, 103092. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103092]
Zhang, J.W.; Plowman, E.J.; Tian, B.; Cleren, S.; On, W.L.S. Predictive Potential of MALDI-TOF Analyses for Wine and Brewing Yeast. Microorganisms. 2022, 10(2), 265. [https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020265]
2-Comment: Please supply the main analytical parameters of navel oranges used (Brix, pH, total acidity…).
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have presented the data. The primary analytical parameters for navel orange wine:
Reducing sugar: 70.03 g/L, pH: 3.56, Organic acid: 3.5 g/L (Citric acid), 1.5 g/L (Malic acid), 0 (Acetic acid), 5.24 g/L (Shikimic acid), Total phenols: 338.78 mg/L, Total Flavonoids: 2500 mg/kg. These data are displayed in the figure 2defgh, 6ab within the manuscript. Thank you for your comment.
3-Comment: I suggest to add details about the pectinase used (name of the commercial preparation, supplier, dosage…).
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, the manufacturer of the pectinase enzyme is indicated in line 91. The specific dosage is indicated in lines 100. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
4-Comment: In section 2.2 authors should better describe the procedure applied for the inoculum preparation.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have made detailed revisions to this section, spanning from lines 95 to 116. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. Here we thank the reviewer and editors for reading our paper carefully and giving the above positive comments.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Jie Tang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments
The main objective of the paper titled: Flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY, according to the authors, is to optimize the process conditions for producing navel orange fruit wine through mixed fermentation of brewing yeast S. cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY.
In my opinion, the objective of this work is acceptable, but the work needs to be modified deeply, to be publishable. Next, I indicate some things to correct or revise in the paper.
· In page 6, lines 239-241 the authors write: “As illustrated in Figure 2c, the alcohol content of navel orange wines produced via different fermentation methods displays an initial increase followed by a gradual plateau.” Regarding Figure 2c, it can be observed that the alcoholic concentration reaches a maximum in the middle of the fermentation, it is not a plateau, and the difference in concentration between the maximum concentration and the final concentration is so important enough to comment this aspect of the fermentation (at least some bibliographic corroborations of these obtained results would be convenient).
· In page 8, line 272 the authors write: “glutamic acid.” But in Figure 3 the name is Glutamate, homogenize the name of amino acid.
· In page 8, line 273-276 the authors write: “Particularly notable increases are observed in phenylalanine, lysine, histidine, arginine, and proline. This increase could be attributed to brewing yeast utilizing the sugar sources and amino acids in navel orange juice to synthesize both functional and structural proteins.” Some bibliographic reference would be necessary.
· In Section 3.4 Analysis of Volatile Compounds Before and After Fermentation, should be better discussed, there are shortcomings, regarding Figure 5a there is no comment in the text and Figure 5c should discuss the results it shows in more detail. Some of the statements made in this section should be supported by the literature.
· A Table with the volatile compounds for the three fermentations, at least as supporting information would be useful for the readers.
· In Figure 5 for the acid the name for the compound 36 is Caproleic acid, while in the text of the paper (line 308 the name is 9-decenoic acid. The authors must normalise the name of the volatile compounds. Check all the paper.
· In page 10, line 324-325 the authors write: “Figures 6ab illustrate the variations in total phenolic and flavonoid contents in navel orange wines under different fermentation methods” while in axis of Figure 6b is indicated total brass content. Homogenise the name.
· In page 11, line 332-335 the authors write: “The rise in total phenolic … yeast to decompose and transform large molecular phenolic compounds.” A reference is necessary.
· In Section 3.5 Changes in total phenol and flavonoids and in vitro antioxidant activity, the discussion must be improved and some of the statements made in this section should be supported by the literature.
· In page 11, line 353-355 the authors write: “When considering the peak areas across all ten sensors, the co-fermented wines demonstrate heightened aroma sensitivity compared to monoculture fermentation”. It will be necessary indicate if the differences are statistically significant. Additionally in page 4 lines 179-180, the authors write “The performance of the 10 sensors in the electronic nose system is outlined in Table S2”. I don’t have access to this Table S2, and I suppose that a Table S1 exist too. Revising the section 2.7. Electronic nose and electronic eye measurements of fermented navel orange wine, in page 4, lines 177-179, the authors write “To investigate the flavor changes during the fermentation process of navel orange juice and analyze the variations in aroma, the headspace air-sampling method [20] was employed.”. The reference 20 is not correct for this sentence. Must be checked. I believe that this section must be discussed more deeply.
· The PCA discussion in page 12, lines 359-371 must be improved and correlated with the influence of each nose sensor.
· The colour analysis must be discussed also more deeply. Analysing for instance the Cielab coordinates to corroborate the differences between the samples.
· In page 13, line 400-401 the authors write: “By applying a mixed fermentation of brewing yeast and commercial yeast to navel orange wine production, a unique lactic aroma and alcoholic scent were imparted.” This conclusion is not justified during the discussion of results. Must be revised in my opinion.
In summary, I believe that the paper it is not acceptable to publish. Need an important revision by the authors.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your kind letter to our manuscript ID “fermentation-2614394”.
We would like to thank Fermentation for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript entitled “Flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY” Yingyue Zhang1, Hong Ye1, Yuting Zou1, Zihan He1, Bitao Xu1, Su Wang1, Chuanning Peng1, Xuerui Zhou1, Qing Zhang1,2, Wenliang Xiang1,2, Cai Ting1,2, Jie Tang1,2,3*. All changes made to the manuscript are in revision mode. We hope the new manuscript will meet your journal’s standard.
Reviewer #2 comments:
The main objective of the paper titled: Flavor characteristics of navel orange wine fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY, according to the authors, is to optimize the process conditions for producing navel orange fruit wine through mixed fermentation of brewing yeast S. cerevisiae SC-125 and Angel yeast SY.
In my opinion, the objective of this work is acceptable, but the work needs to be modified deeply, to be publishable. Next, I indicate some things to correct or revise in the paper.
1-Comment: In page 6, lines 239-241 the authors write: “As illustrated in Figure 2c, the alcohol content of navel orange wines produced via different fermentation methods displays an initial increase followed by a gradual plateau.” Regarding Figure 2c, it can be observed that the alcoholic concentration reaches a maximum in the middle of the fermentation, it is not a plateau, and the difference in concentration between the maximum concentration and the final concentration is so important enough to comment this aspect of the fermentation (at least some bibliographic corroborations of these obtained results would be convenient).
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. We have revised this sentence and placed it in lines 245-246. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
2-Comment: In page 8, line 272 the authors write: “glutamic acid.” But in Figure 3 the name is Glutamate, homogenize the name of amino acid.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have standardized the expression and have presented it in line 276. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
3-Comment: In page 8, line 273-276 the authors write: “Particularly notable increases are observed in phenylalanine, lysine, histidine, arginine, and proline. This increase could be attributed to brewing yeast utilizing the sugar sources and amino acids in navel orange juice to synthesize both functional and structural proteins.” Some bibliographic reference would be necessary.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have incorporated reference [29] and it is now located in lines 542-544. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
Wang, C.Q.; Bao, X.M.; Li, Y.W.; Jiao, C.L.; Hou, J.; Zhang, Q.Z.; Zhang, W.X.; Liu, W.F.; Shen, Y. Cloning and characterization of heterologous transporters in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and identification of important amino acids for xylose utilization. Metab. Eng. 2015, 30, 79-88. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2015.04.007]
4-Comment: In Section 3.4 Analysis of Volatile Compounds Before and After Fermentation, should be better discussed, there are shortcomings, regarding Figure 5a there is no comment in the text and Figure 5c should discuss the results it shows in more detail. Some of the statements made in this section should be supported by the literature.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have made detailed revisions to this section, spanning from lines 295-308. We have also included references [30] within lines 545 to 547. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
Rivera-Pérez, A.; Romero-González, R.; Frenich, G.A. Application of an innovative metabolomics approach to discriminate geographical origin and processing of black pepper by untargeted UHPLC-Q-Orbitrap-HRMS analysis and mid-level data fusion. FRI. 2021, 150, 110722. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110722]
5-Comment: A Table with the volatile compounds for the three fermentations, at least as supporting information would be useful for the readers.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, to avoid redundancy in the main text, we have placed this portion of the data in the supplementary materials. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
6-Comment: In Figure 5 for the acid the name for the compound 36 is Caproleic acid, while in the text of the paper (line 308 the name is 9-decenoic acid. The authors must normalise the name of the volatile compounds. Check all the paper.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have standardized the expression and have presented it in line 309. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
7-Comment: In page 10, line 324-325 the authors write: “Figures 6ab illustrate the variations in total phenolic and flavonoid contents in navel orange wines under different fermentation methods” while in axis of Figure 6b is indicated total brass content. Homogenise the name.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. We sincerely apologize for such a fundamental mistake. According to your kind suggestion, we have standardized the content and indicated the changes on line 325, as well as made revisions to Figure 6. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
8-Comment: In page 11, line 332-335 the authors write: “The rise in total phenolic … yeast to decompose and transform large molecular phenolic compounds.” A reference is necessary.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have incorporated reference [33] and it is now located in lines 554-555. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
Nguela, J.M.; Vernhet, A.; Julien-Ortiz, A.; Sieczkowski, N.; Mouret, J-R. Effect of grape must polyphenols on yeast metabolism during alcoholic fermentation. FRI. 2019, 121, 161-175. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.038]
9-Comment: In page 11, line 353-355 the authors write: “When considering the peak areas across all ten sensors, the co-fermented wines demonstrate heightened aroma sensitivity compared to monoculture fermentation”. It will be necessary indicate if the differences are statistically significant. Additionally in page 4 lines 179-180, the authors write “The performance of the 10 sensors in the electronic nose system is outlined in Table S2”. I don’t have access to this Table S2, and I suppose that a Table S1 exist too. Revising the section 2.7. Electronic nose and electronic eye measurements of fermented navel orange wine, in page 4, lines 177-179, the authors write “To investigate the flavor changes during the fermentation process of navel orange juice and analyze the variations in aroma, the headspace air-sampling method [20] was employed.”. The reference 20 is not correct for this sentence. Must be checked. I believe that this section must be discussed more deeply.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment.
a-We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, and we have revised this sentence and placed it between lines 368 and 378.
b-We appreciate the constructive feedback from the reviewer. We have included Supplementary Table S2 at the end of the response. Indeed, Supplementary Table S1 exists; however, it was not mentioned in the manuscript.
c-We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, and we have made revisions to reference 20.
Table S2 Ten sensors performance of the e-nose
|
Number |
Sensor name |
Sensitized material |
|
1 |
W1C |
Aromatic ingredients |
|
2 |
W5S |
Oxynitride |
|
3 |
W3C |
Aromatic ingredients |
|
4 |
W6S |
Hydrogen |
|
5 |
W5C |
Alkyl aromatic components |
|
6 |
W1S |
Short chain alkanes |
|
7 |
W1W |
Sulfide |
|
8 |
W2S |
Alcohol |
|
9 |
W2W |
Organic sulfide |
|
10 |
W3S |
Alkane |
We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
10-Comment: The PCA discussion in page 12, lines 359-371 must be improved and correlated with the influence of each nose sensor.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have revised this sentence and placed it between lines 382 and 393. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
11-Comment: The colour analysis must be discussed also more deeply. Analysing for instance the Cielab coordinates to corroborate the differences between the samples.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we analyzed the Cielab coordinates, confirming the differences between the samples. This section has been placed in lines 393 to 401 of the manuscript. We have incorporated reference [35] and it is now located in lines 559-560. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
Gómez‐Polo, C.; Javier Montero, J.; Gómez‐Polo, M.; Casado, M.A. Comparison of the CIELab and CIEDE 2000 Color Difference Formulas on Gingival Color Space. J. Prosthodnt. 2017, 29(5), 401-408. [ https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12717]
12-Comment: the authors write: “By applying a mixed fermentation of brewing yeast and commercial yeast to navel orange wine production, a unique lactic aroma and alcoholic scent were imparted.” This conclusion is not justified during the discussion of results. Must be revised in my opinion.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. According to your kind suggestion, we have revised this sentence and placed it in lines 438-439. We would like to express my gratitude once again for the reviewer's valuable suggestion.
We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. Here we thank the reviewer and editors for reading our paper carefully and giving the above positive comments.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Jie Tang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments
