Penicillium roqueforti Secondary Metabolites: Biosynthetic Pathways, Gene Clusters, and Bioactivities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is a very meaningful review, but some minor revisions are needed before it can be officially published.

1. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, it should be supplemented with information on existing relevant reviews, as well as the differences and key points between this review and existing reviews.

 2. In the food and feed industries, fungi can not only produce some toxins, but also beneficial secondary metabolites such as Monascus pigments and monacolins.

Overall, the writing of the manuscript is relatively standardized, but there are still some areas of standardization. For example, the microbial names in lines 441，447 and 449 of the manuscript should be italicized. Please carefully check the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment

The review paper:” Secondary metabolites of Penicillium roqueforti: Biosynthesis, 2 bioactivities, and occurrence in blue cheeses” of author Banu Metin, represents contribution toward comprehensive overview of Penicillium roqueforti secondary metabolites, with an accent on their biosynthesis pathways (gene clusters and their products) and bioactivities. Review covers very well literature sources and extracted information conveyed from literature is accurate and relevant. English language style and grammar are acceptable.

However, before being suitable for acceptance and publication, author should clearly point out advantages and novelty of this current review compared to the recent literature overview falling in the same topic. I address particularly this review, that author has cited it as ref. no 28:

“Chávez R, Vaca I, García-Estrada C. Secondary Metabolites Produced by the Blue-Cheese Ripening Mold Penicillium roqueforti; Biosynthesis and Regulation Mechanisms. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(4):459. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9040459”, published on 10 April 2023.

Major Comments:

1)     I think that this review has significant overlap with the current manuscript and therefore, it is needed to adhere to above request. Luckily there are novel secondary metabolites that were not elaborated in Chavez review, so author is advised to clearly point out advantages and novelty of this current review in the abstract and introduction. Since this reference 28 is a review paper with very similar theme, tis should be mentioned earlier in the paper and not on that specific place where it is now as it falls in original research articles that were dealing with the biosynthetic gene clusters determination of novel secondary metabolites. Review article of course can be again cited here but together with the references it lists as the source of biosynthetic gene clusters determination of novel secondary metabolites.

2)     The title of the manuscript mentions “and occurrence in blue cheeses”. I could not find a dedicated section where there is an overview of (selected) secondary metabolites content in different blue cheeses. Maybe a Table format would be an adequate approach to show these? On the other hand, if this was not the author aim, then the Title should be rephrased so not to delude the readers.

Kind regards

 English language style and grammar are acceptable.

Pay attention to minor errors such as in the introduction, line 32, there is a word missing after the word fed, it should be "fed by" instead of only "fed".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx