Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 11th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 29th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 19th, 2016 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 4th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Concerns have been addressed adequately in the revised version.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The revised version has been improved significantly.

Experimental design

The experimental design is valid and allows future replication.

Validity of the findings

I believe that the findings are valid and up to standard.

Comments for the author

The current version is acceptable.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I have reviewed all the files submitted including the letter to the Editors, the responses to the reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript. It seems to me that the authors have addressed all the reviewers' concerns/suggestions. I am satisfied with the revision.

Kind regards,

Guijun

Experimental design

As above.

Validity of the findings

As above.

Comments for the author

Well done, authors!

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Overall, the reviews are favorable but revisions are needed before the manuscript can be considered further. I urge the authors to address the concerns raised.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This is an interesting study to describe the effect of microbial transglutaminase-added bio-tofu on in-vitro digestibility. The overall manuscript has been presented in a scientific way, with novel findings and concise discussions, thus merits for suitable publication in PeerJ. All tables and figures have been illustrated clearly.

Experimental design

The experimental design was clear, appropriate and allows future replication.

Remark: I would rather suggest the author to change ANOVA analysis to independent student t test for the direct comparison between with and without bio-tofu (only 2 groups). As such, Duncan's post hoc is not needed.

Validity of the findings

I believe that the findings are valid and up to standard.

Remark: The authors are suggested to add more discussions on the beneficial effects of bio-tofu in human health. Also please include the limitation of your work (ie: only in-vitro study to evaluate digestibility).

Comments for the author

The overall manuscript is merit for publication.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript described a procedure of making a novel bio-tofu from a combination of soy and cow milk using MTGase as coagulant, and compared in vitro gastrointestinal digestion of the bio-tofu with and without MTGase. The authors reported that addition of MTGase affected protein structure in the tofu with increased particle size and tightness and therefore slowed its digestion. Protein degradation was monitored under the simulated gastrointestinal environment, and protein profiles, degree of hydrolysis and amino acid contents were measured to determine the digestion status of the product.

Experimental design

The experimental design is appropriate and the findings are valid.

Validity of the findings

Fine!

Comments for the author

The manuscript is well-written and relatively easy to follow, yet it willl increase readability if you can ask a native English speaker to check the grammar, spelling and word use.
Specific comments:
Line 54: “possible to obtained” should be “possible to be obtained”?
Line 76: “which related to” should be “which is related to”?
Line 256: “which lead to” should be “which led to”?
Line 363: “increasing of the DH” should be “increase of the DH”?
Line 337-340, 363 and 383: please keep consistency in using past tense describing the results.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

Language should be further polished.

Figures should be carefully labelled.

Table 1 a, b?

Experimental design

The experiments are well designed, but lack scientific significance.

Validity of the findings

The data is solid and sound

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.