Alcohol-Free Beer Produced Using Maltose-Negative Wine Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae with Probiotic Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work focuses on an innovative application of a specific wine-origin yeast strain (S. cerevisiae CCM 9181) for alcohol-free beer production with potential probiotic properties. Investigating the yeast's viability in gastrointestinal conditions and its potential as a probiotic is also noteworthy. I believe the work should be published after minor inclusions.

The manuscript appears to tackle an interesting and timely topic, bridging the gap between beverage technology and potential health benefits. The mentioned suggestions are intended to refine further and enhance the clarity and impact of the research.

-The focus on alcohol-free beer (AFB) and preserving organoleptic properties is well-established. However, it would be useful to have a brief introductory sentence at the start of the "Discussion" section to clarify the main problem and objective.

-The conclusion seems to draw mainly from the results, as it should. Still, it would be beneficial to tie the conclusion more explicitly to broader implications.

-Given the significance of the potential health claims related to alcohol-free beers, further elaboration on these claims or citations to studies that have made these claims would strengthen the conclusion.

-Mention any limitations of your study and suggest directions for future research. You've touched on this with the VBNC state; further investigations are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript evaluated the production of alcohol-free beer using a new isolated yeast. The manuscript is well written, the experiments are well designed and the ways and means are well described and well discussed and compared with literature. It is also in the scope of the journal. However, before it can be published, there are some points to be improved:

1)     Please avoid using abbreviations in the abstract

2)     In line 102 please correct to “minus” : “-20”

3)     Line 108: authors say that performed an “alpha face-centered central composite design”, however in Table 2 they do not present an alpha-face-centered matrix, there is no alpha coded values (axial points). For 2² CCD, α=±1,41, then for T -α and + α should be-2.95ºC and 17.05ºC, respectively. Of course, it would not be possible to perform beer production under zero degrees. However, please correct the DOE’s name in methodology to the right one used.

4)     Item 2.7: please provide reference for this methodology

5)     Please explain if the yeast is not producing ethanol what is the main product of sugar consumption?

6)     Line 278: please correct “(Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.)”

7)     Conclusion must be revised: it is not supposed to have new information and references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Check the language in the abstract and all over the manuscript

Add data about the sensory properties of beer in line 18

In line 20, add the scientific name of the used strain

The introduction is short and lacks some of the study's objectives; include all objectives in the introduction, such as adding a review about the used strain

Sec 2.1 need to be divided into subsections

The units must be followed the international unit (min, h,…) check and correct.

Move Table 1 before sec 2.3

Lines 111-114, move to the statistical analysis section

Add indication for each abbreviation in tables in the table footnote

Clear the control and other treatments

Make a separate sec for statistical analysis

Enhance the presentation of all results

Add the statistical letters for all tables

Lines 252-253, if equations adjust and number them

Update the discussion and enhance the conclusion

Check the outputs of all references

extensive revision by an expert 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf