Effect of Lactobacillus curvatus HY7602-Fermented Antler on Sarcopenia in Mice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present study Jeon and colleagues tested the anti-sarcopenia effect of a probiotic-enriched fermented Antler in mice.

The study has merit, several complementary analysis have been performed to support the conclusion and the aim is clear.

However, some weak points arose during the review, in particular concerning the microbiological part of the study.

In summary:

_L86-90: How does an inactivated L. curvatus (by pastourization!) carry on a fermentation process?

If this sentence is correct, are the author sure that the fermentation have been conducted by the inoculated strain and not by the autochthonous microbiota?

Did they check the presence of the strain at the end of the fermentation process (counts, isolation, species specific PCR)?

Please clarify these points.

_L92: Please report here at the beginning of the chapter the total number of mice used in the experiment

_L131: Check the chapter's title.

_L132-149: It seems to me that the data elaboration approach is not described or not clarified.

Absolute quantification? Relative gene expression analysis with HG as reference?

I would prefer detailed description instead of "as previously described

_L346-353: Area peaks based percentage are not the appropriate way to present the HPLC data.

Please, provide compounds concentrations (g/L, ppm...), which can be comparable with other studies.

Moreover, no statistics seem to have been applied on these data (looking at the table).

Please compare statistically the outcomes.

_L360-457: In all the Discussion the authors re-propose the outcomes, step by step, as described in the Results session. Few comparison of the results achieved here with those of other studies are reported, and even less critical comments over the biological phenomena observed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this manuscript was interesting, but I still have some comments about it, as follow:

1.Why the author want to use the Lactobacillus curvatus to ferment deer antler?

2.The method of this manuscript should be focus on anti-fatigue not focus on anti-sarcopenoa.

3.Why the author only analysis the content of SCFAs, how about others FA?

4.How to confirm the mice was in the status of sarcopenia?

5.The main components of fermented antler for this study?

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf