Characterization of Bacterial Diversity in Aguamiel and Two Types of Pulque from the Zacatlán Region, México
, Eva Mariel Ortega-RodrÃguez, Beatriz Pérez-Armendáriz * and Elie Girgis El-KassisRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript fermentation-2421810 certainly brings new knowledge about the processes of making traditional drinks and quite meets the criteria of Fermentation magazine.
Introduction
It is advisable to introduce more extensive information about the role of modern molecular genetic methods in the study and improvement of fermentation drinks, not only regional ones, and accordingly update the references list.
Table 1 is uninformative, only 4 sources, 2 methods (without specifying the gene region). The value lies only in the enumeration of genera? It is quite possible to do without a table.
Materials and Methods
In what season were the samples taken, is there any influence of this factor on the formation of the microbiota? The study of other microorganisms (except bacteria) in these fermentation processes was not? How relevant is this?
Results and discussion
Why are there no unclassified bacteria? Or was the identification 100% successful? This must be indicated in the article.
There is no Conclusion and there are not enough any recommendations on the practical use of the results obtained.
Author Response
Dear Review 1, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Abstract should be rewritten to better represent the paper content.
The context should be better described and description and update on functional beverages inserted such as:
Nazhand, et al. Ready to Use Therapeutical Beverages: Focus on Functional Beverages Containing Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics. Beverages 2020, 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages6020026
Additional information on samples and samplings should be added, including graphical ones.
Check and add major details onon methodologies om Bacterial genomic DNA extraction.
Table 2 should be better described in the text.
Results in Figures 2, 3 and 4 should be better described in the text.
A section Conclusion should be inserted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a good job on the manuscript. They managed to strengthen scientific work. A small note: in section 4, which appeared in the new version, there is no information about aguamiel, it is advisable to add it. After correcting this comment, the manuscript is recommended for publication in Fermentation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
