Review Reports
by
- Kiseok Han †,
- Soyoung Park † and
- Myeong-Hyeon Wang *
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Dragoljub Cvetković Reviewer 2: Eman Khalifa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All my edits and comments are in the file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
# Reviewer- 1
Greetings,
Thank you for your decision as the revision is associated with valuable comments on our recently submitted article (fermentation-2530214). I am thankful to the Editors and reviewers for their keen observations and comments for the betterment of our article. Hence, I am submitting the revised manuscript and complete responses to the reviewers. The changes made in the revised manuscript is highlighted in the blue-colored text.
We have answered and corrected accordingly those comments were asked in the manuscript PDF version.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on improving our articles in a better way. We believe that we have answered all the queries asked by the reviewers and made all the changes in the manuscript as per the Editor and reviewer’s suggestions. I thank all the co-authors who have significantly contributed to the revision of the manuscript as well. We are looking forward to your valuable decision on our revised submission.
Thank you
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript submitted to “Fermentation” an MDPI journal entitled: “Isolation and Characterization of Enterococcus Faecium Strains from Fermented Korean Soybean Paste with Antibacterial Effects” which discussed Enterococcus faecium as a probiotic isolated from soybean paste, the following comments should be followed:
- Title of the manuscript: remove the word strains, only the name of bacteria is sufficient to become “Isolation and Characterization of Enterococcus Faecium from Fermented Korean Soybean Paste with Antibacterial Effects”
- In all the manuscript, change the word strains with isolates; as the word strains mean previously identified and obtained from strains bank or whatever and you performed further studies on it, but in your study you isolated the bacteria from scratch so they are isolates not strains.
- Line 5: affiliation numbers should be added beside all authors as well as below the name of the authors add their affiliation serially.
- Line 11: “simulated gastrointestinal conditions”, of whom, you should specify.
- Abstract: bacteria should be written completely for the first time, then abbreviated, so write the whole name of all firstly mentioned bacteria.
- Abstract should be rewritten in order to sounds better.
- Line 16: ABTS should write the whole words.
- Lines 333 is incomplete and with 358 are repeated, remove one of them and justify.
- Lines 334 and 359 are repeated, remove one of them and justify.
- log10 in whole the manuscript should change into log10
- Materials and Methods:
· How many samples were collected to isolate the 8 isolates? You should mention in the manuscript.
· Add the references in each step because some of them are missed.
· Line 72: add a space after the word broth.
· Line 76: remove the coma before point.
· Line 99: you said “some modifications” you should mention them briefly here.
· Lines 102 and 106: remove the word was after the word colonies.
· S. enterica, S. aureus, E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes: mentioned in the manuscript without saying about them in materials and methods section, please add this missed part in methodology.
· Line 114: why incubation occur ONLY with S. entrica and S. aureus not with all investigated strains; E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes? Although you mentioned in line 12 “was specific to all strains but similar to auto aggregation” there is a great conflict, please revise and correct. As well as in line 143: “S. aureus (ATCC 19095) and E. coli (ATCC 43888)” why not for other bacterial strains; E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, although you mentiond in other sections of the manuscript, but not in material and methods section?
· Line 114: “analyzed following the previous report” unclear sentence please clarify.
· Line 159: “The isolated strain and the pathogenic strain”, please mention the name of the bacteria.
- Results and discussion:
· Line 171 and 172: “For the isolation of probiotics, four types of homemade soybean paste with different manufacturing years (1, 2, 3, and 4 years) were chosen” this part should be transferred into materials and methods section.
· This section should be rewritten in more organized pattern as well as more details of the result should be discussed with recent specific references.
-
- References:
· Should be updated till 2023.
· More references about the aim of the study should be added.
· Add DOI to ref. whenever found.
· Write the all authors, names not et al. in all references.
- Section of abbreviation at the end of the manuscript should be added.
English scientific language of the manuscript should be improved to highlight and flow with scientific community well
Author Response
# Reviewer- 2
Greetings,
Thank you for your decision as the revision is associated with valuable comments on our recently submitted article (fermentation-2530214). I am thankful to the Editors and reviewers for their keen observations and comments for the betterment of our article. Hence, I am submitting the revised manuscript and complete responses to the reviewers. The changes made in the revised manuscript is highlighted in the blue-colored text.
The manuscript submitted to “Fermentation” an MDPI journal entitled: “Isolation and Characterization of Enterococcus Faecium Strains from Fermented Korean Soybean Paste with Antibacterial Effects” which discussed Enterococcus faecium as a probiotic isolated from soybean paste, the following comments should be followed:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to improve the manuscript. We have provided the response to each insightful comment flowingly.
Title of the manuscript: remove the word strains, only the name of bacteria is sufficient to become “Isolation and Characterization of Enterococcus Faecium from Fermented Korean Soybean Paste with Antibacterial Effects”
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The title of the manuscript corrected accordingly in the revised manuscript.
In all the manuscript, change the word strains with isolates; as the word strains mean previously identified and obtained from strains bank or whatever and you performed further studies on it, but in your study you isolated the bacteria from scratch so they are isolates not strains.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and clarification. The “strains” changed into “isolates” in the revised manuscript.
Line 5: affiliation numbers should be added beside all authors as well as below the name of the authors add their affiliation serially.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Actually all authors are form the same affiliation. Due the symbol error for equal contribution this mistakes is happened. The errors have been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Line 11: “simulated gastrointestinal conditions”, of whom, you should specify.
Response: In response to your comment, I modified it by adding a description of " simulated gastrointestinal conditions ".
Abstract: bacteria should be written completely for the first time, then abbreviated, so write the whole name of all firstly mentioned bacteria.
Response: Thanks for your comments. The all bacteria name written completely for the first time according to your suggestions.
Abstract should be rewritten in order to sounds better.
Response: Thanks for your comments. The abstract has been modified in the revised manuscript.
Line 16: ABTS should write the whole words.
Response: Thanks for your comment and corrected accordingly.
Lines 333 is incomplete and with 358 are repeated, remove one of them and justify.
Response: Thanks for your comment and we do not found any content related to the results and discussion.
Lines 334 and 359 are repeated, remove one of them and justify.
Response: Thanks for your comment and we do not found any content related to the results and discussion.
log10 in whole the manuscript should change into log10
Response: The mistake has been modified.
Materials and Methods:
How many samples were collected to isolate the 8 isolates? You should mention in the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your comments and corrected accordingly.
Add the references in each step because some of them are missed.
Response: Thanks for your suggestions and the reference have been added accordingly.
Line 72: add a space after the word broth.
Response: Thank you and corrected.
Line 76: remove the coma before point.
Response: Thank you and corrected.
Line 99: you said “some modifications” you should mention them briefly here.
Response: Thanks for your comments and added modified experimental protocols used in the manuscript.
Lines 102 and 106: remove the word was after the word colonies.
Response: Thanks for your suggestions and corrected accordingly.
- enterica, S. aureus, E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes: mentioned in the manuscript without saying about them in materials and methods section, please add this missed part in methodology.
Response: Thanks for your suggestions and the missing information have been provided in the revised manuscript.
Line 114: why incubation occur ONLY with S. entrica and S. aureus not with all investigated strains; E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes? Although you mentioned in line 12 “was specific to all strains but similar to auto aggregation” there is a great conflict, please revise and correct. As well as in line 143: “S. aureus (ATCC 19095) and E. coli (ATCC 43888)” why not for other bacterial strains; E. coli, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, although you mentiond in other sections of the manuscript, but not in material and methods section?
Response: Thanks for your insightful comments. The co-aggregation experiment, we used two bacterial pathogens with different cell surface properties as the model. This could be analyzed with different bacteria. Further, the highlighted mistakes have been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Line 114: “analyzed following the previous report” unclear sentence please clarify.
Response: Thanks for your comments and corrected accordingly.
Line 159: “The isolated strain and the pathogenic strain”, please mention the name of the bacteria.
Response: Thanks for your comments and corrected accordingly.
Results and discussion:
Line 171 and 172: “For the isolation of probiotics, four types of homemade soybean paste with different manufacturing years (1, 2, 3, and 4 years) were chosen” this part should be transferred into materials and methods section.
This section should be rewritten in more organized pattern as well as more details of the result should be discussed with recent specific references.
Response: Thanks for your comments and corrected accordingly.
References:
Should be updated till 2023.
More references about the aim of the study should be added.
Add DOI to ref. whenever found.
Write the all authors, names not et al. in all references.
Section of abbreviation at the end of the manuscript should be added.
Response: Thanks for your suggestions and modified accordingly. However, the reference was added by the reference software “Endnote reference manager” corresponding to the journal format.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on improving our articles in a better way. We believe that we have answered all the queries asked by the reviewers and made all the changes in the manuscript as per the Editor and reviewer’s suggestions. I thank all the co-authors who have significantly contributed to the revision of the manuscript as well. We are looking forward to your valuable decision on our revised submission.
Thank you
Corresponding author
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In Materials and Methods section, please add references for the followings:
2.2. Isolation of probiotics from fermented food
2.3. 6s rRNA sequencing for identification of probiotics
2.8. Antibacterial activity
In references section:
Add DOI to ref. whenever found
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Greetings, thank you for your decision as the revision is associated with valuable comments on our recently submitted article (fermentation-2530214) I am thankful to the Editors and reviewers for their keen observations and comments for the betterment of our article. Hence, I am submitting the revised manuscript and complete responses to the reviewers. The changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in the blue-colored text.
In Materials and Methods section, please add references for the followings:
2.2. Isolation of probiotics from fermented food
2.3. 16s rRNA sequencing for identification of probiotics
2.8. Antibacterial activity
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions and we have updated our manuscript accordingly.
In references section:
Add DOI to ref. whenever found
Response: Thanks for your suggestions and DOI has been added to the reference in the revised manuscript.
Minor editing of English language required
Response: The English language of the manuscript has been corrected with the help of a native English-speaking researcher.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on improving our articles in a better way. We believe that we have answered all the queries asked by the reviewers and made all the changes in the manuscript as per the Editor and reviewer’s suggestions. I thank all the co-authors who have significantly contributed to the revision of the manuscript as well. We are looking forward to your valuable decision on our revised submission.
Thank you
Corresponding author