Enhancing Antimicrobial Peptide Productivity in Pichia pastoris (Muts Strain) by Improving the Fermentation Process Based on Increasing the Volumetric Methanol Consumption Rate
, Supenya Chittapun 1, Chanitchote Piyapittayanun 1, Viroj Boonyaratanakornkit 2, Sarintip Sooksai 3, Kittisak Ajariyakhajorn 4, Soisuda Pornpukdeewattana 5, Warawut Krusong 5, Tunyaboon Laemthong 6 and Theppanya Charoenrat 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic and the main contents of this study result to be potentially interesting, but a weak framing of background and objectives, an unclear presentation of the experimental plan, and a confusing arrangement of figures and tables make the reader's understanding difficult and tiring. I recommend some modifications before publication in Fermentation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presented herein described a method for improving peptide productivity by increasing the cell concentration of Pichia pastoris before the induction stage. While the presentation requires polish, the conclusion is supported by the data collected here. A few suggestions:
1. Line 55 -60, authors emphasized the advantage of Mut+ strain and the weakness of Muts strain, which does flow well with the fact that the study is carried out with Muts strain. Authors should briefly introduce the reason why Muts strain is more applicable.
2. Line 116, ‘feed rate’ should be ‘growth rate’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
# As a non-native speaker, I found the manuscript easy to read and understand. However, there are some grammatical errors and, in some instances, the phrasing needs to improve.
# Abstract should support quantitative values
# Define abbreviations upon the first appearance in the text, especially scientific
# Line, 48. Please make sure of the writing style of the references. Merge these references [1, 2, 3, 4]. Please, check your whole paper and the same instances
# h/hours, unify the writing style
# More recent references need to support this study
# In figures, lines it’s not clear between DCW, DPT (% saturation), MF medium feed, GF medium feed, and Protein content, etc. Please mark them accordingly.
# Figure caption should be improved. Lake of statistical data such as error bars or SD on the figure legends
# Antimicrobial peptide was tested against varied microbes to check its activity after the fermentation process ?
# Expression experiment should be inserted/referenced?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors provided very exausastive comments and changes. I don't any further recommendation and I agree to the publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed and answered the comments
