Screening of a Novel Fibrinolytic Enzyme-Producing Streptomyces from a Hyper-Arid Area and Optimization of Its Fibrinolytic Enzyme Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is important to screen a novel fibrinolytic enzyme-producing strain.

Specific comments

1. The genbank sequence from the authors that I ran showed more than 99% similarity to multiple known Streptomyces, shared highest similarity with Streptomyces fumanus  (100%), The authors only list 2 primers, so the strain may be an already known strain;

2. Results 3.4, Crude enzyme solution itself contains a lot of protein, and the protein will change after inactivation, so the explanation of (BC) band in Figure 4B is less rigorous;

3. Results , Fig. 5 Fig. 6 is not clear, especially the abscissa; The results showed that the initial medium was not used as a control (because the maximum relative enzyme activity was 100%), which was not quite consistent with what was described in the method;

4. Lines 281 through 297 describe the result poorly;

5. Why not just choose KNO₃ as the best nitrogen source, which turns out to be not significantly different from peptone and is cheaper.(Fig.5B);

6. What is the difference between the control group and (Group Fe²⁺) in Figure 6, The control medium already contains Fe²⁺;

7. There are also some minor formatting errors, please check and correct them.

(For example, 330 lines “fibrinolytic enzyme activity was 1249.5 g/L”)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Screening of a novel fibrinolytic enzyme-producing Streptomyces from the Hyper-arid area and optimization of its fibrinolytic enzyme production" is of great relevance to the area. However, to be accepted for publication in this renowned journal, it needs major corrections. All considerations are pointed out in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is sufficiently improved. All my concerns are answered.

Author Response

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

All suggestions for changes/corrections have been implemented.

I still suggest that in line 87 of item 2.1 the citation of previous article is included, not just inform that it is from the research group.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf