Review Reports - The Influence of Flavonoid Dihydroquercetin on the Enzymatic Processes of Dough Ripening and the Antioxidant Properties of Bread

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The entire article needs a comprehensive language correction. Also, the text layout and style should be improved.

The title of the article should be linguistically corrected and the word dihydroquercetin should be used instead of the word taxifolin.

Abstract

The authors should write what exactly the Taxifolin preparation is, since they use a trade name. To my knowledge it is dihydroquercetin on a carrier. How much of the active ingredient is in this preparation? This should also be written in the abstract.

Introduction

line 39-42- The authors should also mention other ways of fortifying breads. Bread is made with supplementation of other then wheat flour such as amaranth, coconut, chestnut, itp. or the addition of seaweeds, or fruit/vegetable juices. Here I provide recommendations:

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010133; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154641; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100403; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11112178

line 65-70-the same situation as in the abstract. Please write what exactly the Taxifolin preparation is, because you use a trade name. Taxifolin is not pure substance and this information should be presented here.

line 79, 99, 108, 366 - Microbial names are written in italics, please correct

line 86-88 - On what basis do the authors claim that the effects of polyphenols on yeast performance have been insufficiently studied and understood? This thesis needs to be supported by the literature, because in my opinion there are many publications on this subject. The authors also contradict themselves in the sentences below (line 89-93).

line 93-97- The sentences in this piece of text are taken out of context and need to be improved in content and style.

line 98-101- the purpose of the paper is poorly formulated. Instead of the word taxifolin (this is the name of a dietary supplement and not of an active substance), the word dihydroquercetin should be used. In addition, the authors did not study the preservation in bread of taxifolin but the specific active substance in it. The purpose and scope of the work should be re-described in a scientific manner.

Materials and Methods

line 106-107- the active ingredient of this Taxifolin supplement should be given. The authors even mention the purity of this supplement.

line 112- But what kind of flour was used?

line 113 - please indicate the amount of water in the recipe

line 111-112- Breads were produced for the entire experiment with only 100g of flour with water and yeast? clarification and text improvement is needed here

line 118-120- What do you mean by writing that prescription dosage of supplement Taxifolin was calculated with the recommended consumption rates of the biologically active substance was chosen.

line 127, 143, 151, 169, 171, 174- subsection name is missing

line 135- At what temperature?, please also provide the name of the model and manufacturer of the freezer.

line 137- this sentence needs improvement

line 137-142- The authors did only a single extraction of the dough? Please add the procedure for extracting active substances from breads. It is not described at all.

line 143-150- The authors could not chromatographically examine the content of taxifolin but its active ingredient dihydroquercetin. Please change this to the correct names. What concentration range was used for calibration? The chromatogram from the analyses is needed to show the specificity of the analysis (even as supplementary material for the article or appendix). Have the authors validated the assay method and can they provide the LOQ and LOD?

line 151-153- Please fully describe the determination procedure and provide a citation for the procedure being reproduced. The current state of the description is unacceptable.

line 163- not taxifolin but dihydroquercetin

line 164- The authors cite the method used for beverages vs. mark breads. It should be explained in the text what the changes in methodology consisted of.

line 169-1175- The description of the methodology is very sparse and unacceptable. I suggest combining the description with the same markings made on the dough.

2.5.4. Potential bioavailability of taxifolin- The authors did not specify on what they conducted the tests: on dough or on breads or on both groups. There is no information on how much material was taken, in what subsequent digestions were carried out? Kconc is the amount of dihydroquercetin, not taxifolin!

Statistical analysis- The authors should state in how many repetitions the entire experiment was conducted.

Results “and Discussion”?

Figure 2, 4- there is no labeling of individual bars which makes it impossible to interpret

line 229- check the text

Figure 3, line 237 and so on- symbols under the posts should be explained in the footer; this figure shows the amount of dihydroquercetin, not taxifolin

line 285- figure 2? Figures should be numbered in order regardless of what they relate to.

line 291- citation is missing

Conclusions

line 365-366- Since the addition of the preparation slightly affected the performance of the yeast, it could not badly affect the technological efficiency of the process. Besides, this is too far-fetched conclusion because the authors did not study the effect of the preparation addition on the process yield.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript and your constructive comments and suggestions for improving the presented material.

Absolutely all individual comments are taken into account and corrected in our new version of the manuscript, in particular.

The entire article needs comprehensive language correction. Also, the layout and style of the text needs to be improved. Article edited and proofread.

The title of the article should be linguistically corrected and the word dihydroquercetin should be used instead of the word taxifolin. Appropriate correction made.

Abstract

Introduction

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010133; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154641; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100403; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11112178 Appropriate correction done

line 79, 99, 108, 366 - Microbial names are written in italics, please correct Corrected

line 93-97- The sentences in this piece of text are taken out of context and need to be improved in content and style.

Materials and Methods

line 106-107- the active ingredient of this Taxifolin supplement should be given. The authors even mention the purity of this supplement. Corrected

line 112- But what kind of flour was used? line 113 - please indicate the amount of water in the recipe Appropriate correction done.The description is expanded.

line 111-112- Breads were produced for the entire experiment with only 100g of flour with water and yeast? clarification and text improvement is needed here Appropriate correction done.The description is expanded.

line 118-120- What do you mean by writing that prescription dosage of supplement Taxifolin was calculated with the recommended consumption rates of the biologically active substance was chosen. Appropriate correction done. The description is expanded.

line 127, 143, 151, 169, 171, 174- subsection name is missing Corrected

line 135- At what temperature?, please also provide the name of the model and manufacturer of the freezer. Appropriate correction done.

line 137- this sentence needs improvement Corrected

line 137-142- The authors did only a single extraction of the dough? Please add the procedure for extracting active substances from breads. It is not described at all.

line 151-153- Please fully describe the determination procedure and provide a citation for the procedure being reproduced. The current state of the description is unacceptable. Appropriate correction done. The description is expanded.

line 163- not taxifolin but dihydroquercetin Corrected

line 164- The authors cite the method used for beverages vs. mark breads. It should be explained in the text what the changes in methodology consisted of. Appropriate correction done. The description is expanded.

line 169-1175- The description of the methodology is very sparse and unacceptable. I suggest combining the description with the same markings made on the dough. Appropriate correction done.

Statistical analysis- The authors should state in how many repetitions the entire experiment was conducted. Appropriate correction done.

Results “and Discussion”? Corrected

Figure 2, 4- there is no labeling of individual bars which makes it impossible to interpret Corrected

line 229- check the text Corrected

Figure 3, line 237, etc. - the symbols under the pillars should be explained in the footer; this figure shows the amount of dihydroquercetin, not taxifolin. Corrected

line 285 - number 2? Figures should be numbered in order, regardless of what they refer to. Corrected

line 291 - quote missing Corrected

Conclusion

line 365-366- Since the addition of the drug had little effect on the productivity of yeast, it could not have a bad effect on the manufacturability of the process. In addition, this is a far-fetched conclusion, since the authors did not investigate the effect of drug addition on the process yield. Appropriate correction made

With gratitude, the team of authors

Reviewer 2 Report

This present study investigated the flavonoid taxifolin on the enzymatic processes of dough ripening and the antioxidant properties of bread. The result showed that taxifolin had a negative impact on the efficiency of technological processes of bread-making, although it increased the antioxidant properties of bread. The manuscript had a specific innovation in choosing taxifolin as research material, but many errors need to be corrected. So, I suggest that the manuscript should be revised carefully, as in the following comments.

1. The English language need to be polished carefully. There are numours errors in the manuscript. Such as, in Figure 2. what is the meaning of each column? And there are two Figure 2 in line 293 and 215, and two Figures 3 in 236 and 338. The figures' order is not uniform, and difficult for the reader to understand the experimental results.

2. The Introduction lacks background on the flavonoid Taxifolin. Why was it chosen for the present study, and what are its unique advantages compared to other compounds? Does it has higher bioactivity, or it has more stability during processing? These need to be discussed clearly rather than in a general overview (from line 43 to 63).

3. The experimental methods were poorly described and insufficiently supported by the literature, such as in “2.2. Preparation of bread.”, what was the steamless method? The fermentation and baking parameters should be provided. Furthermore, Line 119-Line 120, reference 29 didn’t provide the recommended dosage, the calculation formula should be provided, or more suitable references should be cited.

4. The color, flavors, and sensory characteristics of bread are important factors for consumers, but this manuscript does not study the effect of Taxifolin on these qualities of bread. The reason for these should be described in the manuscript or supplement the specific experiments.

5. In determining bread's chemical composition and oxidative properties, the total flavonoid content of the crust and crumb were determined separately. Why were they measured separately? Moreover, what was the proportion of Taxifolin in these compounds? Both should be provided with appropriate analysis and discussion.

6. What was the reaction container in determining the bioavailability of Taxifolin, whether the reaction process was static or shaking, and how to determine the original and residual content of Taxifolin in different reaction stages? These should be detailed in the methods and materials.

7. In line 228, the manuscript indicated that the number of yeast increased during fermentation, and the dose of Taxifolin added in this study had no adverse effect on the yeast. However, in conclusion, the manuscript concluded “that the introduction of taxifolin in an amount of 0.05-0.1 g per 100 g of flour slightly reduces the activity of metabolic processes of yeast cells Saccharomyces cerevisiae.”, does this conclusion conflicts with the previous experimental results, the conclusion should be reorganized.

8. Part of the subfigures in Figure 1 did not the result of the current study, it needs to remove or explained reasonably.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your careful attention to our manuscript and constructive comments.

Absolutely all comments have been taken into account and corrected in our new version of the manuscript, in particular

The English language need to be polished carefully. There are numours errors in the manuscript. Such as, in Figure 2. what is the meaning of each column? And there are two Figure 2 in line 293 and 215, and two Figures 3 in 236 and 338. The figures' order is not uniform, and difficult for the reader to understand the experimental results. Appropriate correction done

The Introduction lacks background on the flavonoid Taxifolin. Why was it chosen for the present study, and what are its unique advantages compared to other compounds? Does it has higher bioactivity, or it has more stability during processing? These need to be discussed clearly rather than in a general overview (from line 43 to 63). Appropriate correction done

The experimental methods were poorly described and insufficiently supported by the literature, such as in “2.2. Preparation of bread.”, what was the steamless method? The fermentation and baking parameters should be provided. Furthermore, Line 119-Line 120, reference 29 didn’t provide the recommended dosage, the calculation formula should be provided, or more suitable references should be cited. Appropriate correction done

The color, flavors, and sensory characteristics of bread are important factors for consumers, but this manuscript does not study the effect of Taxifolinon these qualities of bread. The reason for these should be described in the manuscript or supplement the specific experiments.

We did not present the results of a study of the organoleptic characteristics of bread enriched with dihydroquercetin, since this was not a priority for us. In addition, we have previously conducted and already published studies that show that in the dosages we use, dihydroquercetin does not have a significant effect on the organoleptic properties of bread.

We did not present the results of a study of the organoleptic characteristics of bread enriched with dihydroquercetin, since this was not a priority for us. In addition, we have previously conducted and have already published studies that show that in the dosages we use, dihydroquercetin does not have a significant effect on the organoleptic properties of bread.

In determining bread's chemical composition and oxidative properties, the total flavonoid content of the crust and crumb were determined separately. Why were they measured separately? Moreover, what was the proportion of Taxifolin in these compounds? Both should be provided with appropriate analysis and discussion. Appropriate correction done. Explanations given

What was the reaction container in determining the bioavailability of Taxifolin, whether the reaction process was static or shaking, and how to determine the original and residual content of Taxifolin in different reaction stages? These should be detailed in the methods and materials. Appropriate correction done

In line 228, the manuscript indicated that the number of yeast increased during fermentation, and the dose of Taxifolin added in this study had no adverse effect on the yeast. However, in conclusion, the manuscript concluded “that the introduction of taxifolin in an amount of 0.05-0.1 g per 100 g of flour slightly reduces the activity of metabolic processes of yeast cells Saccharomyces cerevisiae.”, does this conclusion conflicts with the previous experimental results, the conclusion should be reorganized. Appropriate correction done

Part of the subfigures in Figure 1 did not the result of the current study, it needs to remove or explained reasonably. Сorrected

With thanks, author team

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all comments and feedback. Although part of the text of the response was written in non-English, the online translator allowed the text to be translated.
I believe that all key corrections were made by the authors. The text of the manuscript should be editorially analyzed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The whole logic is rough and disordered, and there are a number of English language errors that need to be corrected or reorganized in the revised manuscript, it does not necessary to review the revised manuscript further unless the English language has been polished by a native English speaker or carefully checked, I just give two examples in the abstract:

Among well-studied antioxidants we can highlight dihydroquercetin, a flavonoid with outstanding anti-oxidant properties, such as anti-inflammatory activity, immunostimulatory properties, anti-cancer properties and others.

Obviously, the sentence after “anti-oxidant properties” is not correted.

The technology of bread enrichment must consider the possible negative effects of the additive on the technological processes and properties of the final product.

What does that mean of “enrichment” in the sentence?