All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All comments and suggestions raised by reviewers have been covered by the authors.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please revise according to the comments made by the reviewer.
Most issues were addressed
ok
ok
Still authors must consider to refer to isolates, not to strains, unless they show by RAPD that isolates are indeed different strains.
In particular in this paragraph:
A total of twelve different LAB morphotypes were isolated from twenty pineapple silages with
334 increasing levels of urea. Considering the 16S rRNA sequence and pheS gen the isolates
335 correspond to L. paracasei (seven strains), Lentilactobacillus parafarraginis (two strains),
336 Limosilactobacillus fermentum (two strains), and W. ghanensis (one strain)
There are critical points that need to be included in the manuscript. Please revise the concerns and comments made by reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Revision of this work does not guarantee the potential acceptance.
The work is novel and relevant.
The study was well desgined.
The data are convincing and the conclusion justified.
The present study described the isolation of several lactic acid bacteria (LAB) from Costa Rican pineapple silage and characterization of their probiotic potential. As a result, an LAB strain, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei_6714, was identified as a promising probiotic candidate. The work was well-designed and presented.
Major concerns:
1. The antimicrobial activity needs to be evaluated using more LAB strains of different species.
2. The safety of the LAB isolates needs to be tested.
3. In vivo experiments are suggested to evaluate the probiotic ability of the LAB.
4. Well-identified reference LAB strains need to be included as controls in all the assays.
5. The novelty and innovation of the study should be highlighted.
6. The manuscript should be revised by native English speakers.
Minor points:
1. The layout of the tables and figures should be optimized.
2. The references should be a consistent style.
3. Line 1, lactic acid bacteria
4. Line 33, species
5. Lines 144-145, A 1.5- kb fragment…..the primer pair 27F/1492R
6. Line 273, a 1-kb
7. Lines 278 and 295, HeLa
8. Lines 327-328, L. paracasei
9. Line 331, GenBank
10. Line 397, 0.3%
See notes to authors
ok
ok
Line 60: use the WHO/FAO 2022 or ISAPP 2014 definition of probiotics, and cite either source.
Line 63: to colonize the gut is not a prerequisite for probiotics, was not even demonstrated for any strains. Colonization is only temporary, please comment.
Line 101: this is not true, many more studies were conducted in southamerica, especially in Brazil by Prof. R. Schwan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Schwan+RF&cauthor_id=32869919
Line 108: this is not true either, many other were conducted in brazil with LAB from coca: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=brazil+cocoa+lactic+acid+bacteria please update.
The introduction is too long, almost 3 pages, it should be reduced by half and transfer the remaining text to discussion.
How many samples were used for isolation? How many colonies were obtained from each sample for further identification? How many isolates failed to be identified as LAB? What other species non LAB were found?
Line 328: was RAPD applied to say that the strains were really different strains? Most isolates from the same sample are indeed same strains, so it is important to indicate in a table if isolates were obtained from the same sample, or if RAPD was done to make sure that the seven strains are really 7 different strains or copies of the same isolate.
Line 453: this sentence: “and one of few studies obtaining LAB with biotechnological potential from agro-industrial waste in Latin America” shows a limited knowledge of what was published, please deleted or update it.
Tables: do not express results of survival as %, show the colony counts before and after exposure ot acidity, lysozyme, bile salts, etc.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.