Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Hannah Morris 1,
  • Zoe Coombes 1 and
  • Deyarina Gonzalez 1,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are two occurrences of "4.3.2" in the manuscript, among which "4.3.2 Marine derived compounds in regenerative medicine" should be "4.3.3 Marine derived compounds in regenerative medicine".
2. As a background and outlook for commercial applications, the content elaborated in this manuscript is quite appropriate. However, if it is intended as scientific research content, there are various deficiencies. It needs to be evaluated based on the thematic requirements of the journal.
3. The conclusion is relatively complex and needs to be refined in language.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback. All comments have been addressed, and a new version of the manuscript with tracked changes (relevant to all reviewers) has been uploaded as an attachment.

1. There are two occurrences of "4.3.2" in the manuscript, among which "4.3.2 Marine derived compounds in regenerative medicine" should be "4.3.3 Marine derived compounds in regenerative medicine".

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this. It has been addressed.

2. As a background and outlook for commercial applications, the content elaborated in this manuscript is quite appropriate. However, if it is intended as scientific research content, there are various deficiencies. It needs to be evaluated based on the thematic requirements of the journal.

Addressed. The paper is intended as background and outlook as suggested. In line with comments from other reviewers, the paper has been reviewed and edited throughout.


3.    The conclusion is relatively complex and needs to be refined in language.    

Addressed, Section 6 has been reviewed and rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript attempts to cover a very broad range of marine-derived substances and metabolites, together with their activities and potential applications. However, given the breadth and volume of data considered, most examples are discussed only briefly, without in-depth analysis of activities and applications. As a result, the overall narrative remains somewhat descriptive and lacks critical depth.

In the first part of the manuscript, compounds are organized according to chemical nature and molecular type to define their biotechnological potential (Section 3, Functional Classes of Marine Bioactive Compounds). In the case of secondary metabolites with molecular weights below 1500 Da (e.g., terpenes, alkaloids, polyketides; Section 3.4, Peptides and Secondary Metabolites), despite the large number of known compounds, only a few examples are mentioned and their chemical structures are not presented.

Subsequently, biological activity is used as an additional organizing criterion for a similar analysis. The combination of these two approaches results in some repetition of information (Section 3.5, Common Biological Activities Across Classes).

Perhaps the most coherent part of the manuscript is Section 4, Translational Applications of Marine Bioactives, which most clearly reflects the central rationale and intended focus of the work.

Given the breadth of the field encompassing macroalgae, microalgae, and marine microorganisms, a more useful review might consider addressing these groups in separate articles and discussing each in greater depth. This could include detailed consideration of key metabolites, presentation of representative chemical structures, description of mechanisms of action and molecular targets, and a more comprehensive evaluation of potential applications.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and detailed feedback. All comments have been addressed, as outlined below. A revised copy of the manuscript with tracked changes is attached.

 

1. The manuscript attempts to cover a very broad range of marine-derived substances and metabolites, together with their activities and potential applications. However, given the breadth and volume of data considered, most examples are discussed only briefly, without in-depth analysis of activities and applications. As a result, the overall narrative remains somewhat descriptive and lacks critical depth. In the first part of the manuscript, compounds are organized according to chemical nature and molecular type to define their biotechnological potential (Section 3, Functional Classes of Marine Bioactive Compounds). In the case of secondary metabolites with molecular weights below 1500 Da (e.g., terpenes, alkaloids, polyketides; Section 3.4, Peptides and Secondary Metabolites), despite the large number of known compounds, only a few examples are mentioned and their chemical structures are not presented. Subsequently, biological activity is used as an additional organizing criterion for a similar analysis. The combination of these two approaches results in some repetition of information (Section 3.5, Common Biological Activities Across Classes).

Sections 3.4 and 3.5 have been rewritten following the review comments. We have also added representative chemical structures to Tables 1 and 2.

 

2. Perhaps the most coherent part of the manuscript is Section 4, Translational Applications of Marine Bioactives, which most clearly reflects the central rationale and intended focus of the work.

We thank the reviewer for their positive comment on section 4.

 

3. Given the breadth of the field encompassing macroalgae, microalgae, and marine microorganisms, a more useful review might consider addressing these groups in separate articles and discussing each in greater depth. This could include detailed consideration of key metabolites, presentation of representative chemical structures, description of mechanisms of action and molecular targets, and a more comprehensive evaluation of potential applications.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have amended the title and abstract to focus on algae only. We have also removed more substantive references to micro-organisims and other marine sources throughout the body of the text to refine the scope in line with these changes. In addition to the changes outlined in comment 1, we have added Appendix A, Table A1, to better illustrate the translational development with clinical trial status of different algae derived compounds. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reviews algae-derived bioactive compounds and focuses on their translational potential across four domains: nutraceuticals, cosmetics, regenerative medicine, and oncology. Overall, the topic is meaningful and timely.

Comments:

  1. The title suggests broad marine sources, but the manuscript is largely focused on algae, which is a bit of a mismatch.
  2. The abstract states that “marine macroalgae, microalgae, and associated microorganisms are increasingly recognized as valuable sources of bioactive compounds with applications across biotechnology and health”, but the manuscript itself is overwhelmingly focused on algal systems, with only minimal discussion of microorganisms.
  3. Since the paper is trying to talk about the translational biotechnology potential of algae compounds, it would be highly valuable to include a table that shows the current clinical trial status of the active compounds from algae.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and detailed feedback. All comments have been addressed, as outlined below. A revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes (relevant to all reviewers) has been attached.

 

  1. The paper reviews algae-derived bioactive compounds and focuses on their translational potential across four domains: nutraceuticals, cosmetics, regenerative medicine, and oncology. Overall, the topic is meaningful and timely.

We thank the reviewer for their time and their positive summary.

 

  1. The title suggests broad marine sources, but the manuscript is largely focused on algae, which is a bit of a mismatch.

The title has been reviewed and amended, see line 1.

 

  1. The abstract states that “marine macroalgae, microalgae, and associated microorganisms are increasingly recognized as valuable sources of bioactive compounds with applications across biotechnology and health”, but the manuscript itself is overwhelmingly focused on algal systems, with only minimal discussion of microorganisms.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this oversight, which we have now addressed through a revision of the abstract. We have also removed more substantive references to marine micro-organisims or other marine sources to refine the scope in line with these changes.

 

  1. Since the paper is trying to talk about the translational biotechnology potential of algae compounds, it would be highly valuable to include a table that shows the current clinical trial status of the active compounds from algae.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now created a table as Appendix (due to the size of the list). This is now referenced in section 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I revised the paper biotech-4245947 intitled: “Marine-Derived Bioactive Compounds as Platforms for Translational Biotechnology and Health Applications”.

This is an interesting study, with plenty of valuable insights. The topic is relevant and timely, and the manuscript provides a thorough review of the subject, demonstrating the necessary degree of innovation in the context of translational integration. This approach is consistent with the latest trends in the field of biotechnology and the utilization of marine biomass.

Minor formatting is needed, as the authors must follow exactly the formatting indicated in the authors' instructions, and some aspects are not fully correct.

Additionally, other revisions suggested:

Line 35: Although the acronym is relatively well-known to those who work in the area, I recommend that you indicate the meaning of SMEs the first time it appears in the text.

Review and validate the use of "macroalgae" and "macroalgae" throughout the text.

Review throughout the text the use of "seaweed" and "seaweeds" - Seaweed (uncountable) is the general term for marine algae and plants growing in coastal waters, while "seaweeds" (countable) refers to specific types, species, or collections.

Review and adjust the use of "sulphated polysaccharides" and "sulfated polysaccharides", which appear in the text 12 and 5 times respectively, and standardization is recommended.

Line 100: I suggest a revision of figure 1. In the "Cultivation" box, the figure associated with microalgae is not illustrative of this group and should be changed. In the "environmental drivers" putting a land snail in the pathogens also does not seem appropriate to me, I suggest changing.

Line 117: Remove gray box after word "radiation"

Line 543: Table 1, I do not understand why the authors put the polysaccharides in different horizontal boxes separating for example fucoidan, ulvan and laminarin. The second column already makes this distinction, so they should all be grouped in the same alignment, saying only polysaccharides in the first column, and distinguishing the type in the 2nd column. Additionally the authors use "Whole-organism", but I suggest "in vivo".

Line 568: Ecklonia cava should be italicized

Line 1407: quality control (QC)

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their time and detailed feedback. All comments have been addressed, as outlined below. A revised manuscript with tracked changes (relevant to all reviews) has been uploaded as an attachment.

  1. I revised the paper biotech-4245947 intitled: “Marine-Derived Bioactive Compounds as Platforms for Translational Biotechnology and Health Applications”.This is an interesting study, with plenty of valuable insights. The topic is relevant and timely, and the manuscript provides a thorough review of the subject, demonstrating the necessary degree of innovation in the context of translational integration. This approach is consistent with the latest trends in the field of biotechnology and the utilization of marine biomass.

We thank the reviewer for their time and their positive summary

 

  1. Minor formatting is needed, as the authors must follow exactly the formatting indicated in the authors' instructions, and some aspects are not fully correct.

The authors’ instructions have been revisited and the text amended accordingly. This includes CREDIT-style acknowledgements

 

  1. Line 35: Although the acronym is relatively well-known to those who work in the area, I recommend that you indicate the meaning of SMEs the first time it appears in the text.

Addressed, see line 37

 

  1. Review and validate the use of "macroalgae" and "macroalgae" throughout the text.

Addressed throughout, see comment 5

 

  1. Review throughout the text the use of "seaweed" and "seaweeds" - Seaweed (uncountable) is the general term for marine algae and plants growing in coastal waters, while "seaweeds" (countable) refers to specific types, species, or collections.

 Addressed. The term ‘seaweed’ has been replaced by macroalgae/macroalgal terms where appropriate; the quantity is clarified where relevant. Located throughout the document.

 

  1. Review and adjust the use of "sulphated polysaccharides" and "sulfated polysaccharides", which appear in the text 12 and 5 times respectively, and standardization is recommended.

Addressed. The term "sulphated polysaccharides" is the English form and “sulfat*” has been altered throughout excluding in citation list where this spelling has been used.

 

  1. Line 100: I suggest a revision of figure 1. In the "Cultivation" box, the figure associated with microalgae is not illustrative of this group and should be changed. In the "environmental drivers" putting a land snail in the pathogens also does not seem appropriate to me, I suggest changing.

Addressed, the graphic has been changed.

 

  1. Line 117: Remove gray box after word "radiation"

Addressed

 

  1. Line 543: Table 1, I do not understand why the authors put the polysaccharides in different horizontal boxes separating for example fucoidan, ulvan and laminarin. The second column already makes this distinction, so they should all be grouped in the same alignment, saying only polysaccharides in the first column, and distinguishing the type in the 2nd column. Additionally the authors use "Whole-organism", but I suggest "in vivo".

Addressed. Combined columns and reorganised alphabetically (by column one).  "Whole-organism" has been amended in the body of the table.

 

  1. Line 568: Ecklonia cava should be italicized

Addressed

  1. Line 1407: quality control (QC)

We have added the abbreviation to the phrase quality control. Please advise if this comment reflected the need for alternative changes. (Line 1407 now 1107)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated most of the suggestions into the new manuscript.