New Sustainable Oil Seed Sources of Omega-3 Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Journey from the Ocean to the Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Manuscript titled “New Sustainable Oil Seed Sources of Omega-3 Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Journey from the Ocean to the Field” focuses on the development and deregulation of novel oilseed crops producing ω3 LC-PUFA, and their market applications.

Below some suggestions:

1-     Line number 116 Figure 1 is not clear, it would be better to replace the gray color with another color that could be visible easily.

2-     If possible, add the latest references like 2023- 2022

The manuscript is scientifically sound. Minor English grammar mistakes need to be corrected.

The manuscript is well organized and publishable. I recommend it for publication after minor changes.

Author Response

1-     Line number 116 Figure 1 is not clear, it would be better to replace the gray color with another color that could be visible easily.

Response:  

Figure 1 has been revised significantly, including with the color changed to indicate the desaturase and elongase activities, while the original grey parts are indicated by dashed arrows.

2-     If possible, add the latest references like 2023- 2022

Response: 

The manuscript has been updated with further recent published work cited (2022 paper #63, Line 310; 2023 paper #84, Line 293; 2020 paper #88, Line 293, 2023 paper #80, Line 374).

The manuscript is scientifically sound. Minor English grammar mistakes need to be corrected.

 

Response:

The final text has been further carefully checked by three native English speakers.

The manuscript is well organized and publishable. I recommend it for publication after minor changes.

Response:

Thanks for the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is a timely contribution that aligns well with the scope of the journal, addressing the crucial aspects of health, economy, and environment. It highlighted key developments and path to achieving a land-based, sustainable fishlike ω3 LC-PUFA alternative. However, to further enhance its comprehensiveness, it would be beneficial to incorporate  a review or discussion of the historical development and evolution of the scientific work in the field that preceded the works in this review. Although the readers were referred to another review paper (Ref. #32) for that information, a quick perusing of that paper reveals similar gaps. It appears that the current review article mainly focuses on the works conducted by the authors and their associates or collaborators, which may be due to their prominent role in this area of research. Additionally, there is noticeable (seemingly) promotion of the products developed by the authors, which gives the article a slight inclination towards a science news piece rather than a purely objective review (despite its richness).

 

Notwithstanding these observations, the article provides relevant information and addresses the challenges overcome in establishing a land-based sustainable source of ω3 LC-PUFA and suggestions for dealing with deregulation of crops with “nutritionally enhanced traits”. It will be particularly valuable for readers interested in exploring other alternative oil seed crops or engineering multi-gene traits as well as identify current gaps/challenges that remain to be solved. Overall, the article is well-organized and well-written, offering valuable insights into the subject matter.

 

Author Response

The article is a timely contribution that aligns well with the scope of the journal, addressing the crucial aspects of health, economy, and environment. It highlighted key developments and path to achieving a land-based, sustainable fishlike ω3 LC-PUFA alternative. However, to further enhance its comprehensiveness, it would be beneficial to incorporate  a review or discussion of the historical development and evolution of the scientific work in the field that preceded the works in this review. Although the readers were referred to another review paper (Ref. #32) for that information, a quick perusing of that paper reveals similar gaps. It appears that the current review article mainly focuses on the works conducted by the authors and their associates or collaborators, which may be due to their prominent role in this area of research. Additionally, there is noticeable (seemingly) promotion of the products developed by the authors, which gives the article a slight inclination towards a science news piece rather than a purely objective review (despite its richness).

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the opening very positive feedback. 

We have cited more earlier review papers (#20, new #34-36) (Line 126). We also added several more recent publications especially in 2023 from fish, rat trials and clinical trials published from different groups using DHA canola oil or DHA Camelina oil developed by two separate groups (2022 paper #63, Line 310; 2023 paper #84, Line 293; 2020 paper #88, Line 293). However, the DHA canola oil is the only such plant-based O3 LCPUFA product that is approved currently.

The FA profile details of the commercial crop have been removed from the abstract (Line 19). 

A major purpose for this review is not only to summarise the research and development, but also to cover and update the process through deregulation and commercialisation, so it is therefore unavoidable to have multiple mentioning of the DHA canola oil.

Notwithstanding these observations, the article provides relevant information and addresses the challenges overcome in establishing a land-based sustainable source of ω3 LC-PUFA and suggestions for dealing with deregulation of crops with “nutritionally enhanced traits”. It will be particularly valuable for readers interested in exploring other alternative oil seed crops or engineering multi-gene traits as well as identify current gaps/challenges that remain to be solved. Overall, the article is well-organized and well-written, offering valuable insights into the subject matter.

Response:

Thanks for the further positive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English: The English used in the article should be improved. There are some typographic and grammatical errors.

Author Response

The manuscript presents a “New Sustainable Oil Seed Sources of Omega-3 Long-Chain 2 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Journey from the Ocean to the 3 Field”. The topic addressed in this review article holds immense significance due to its extensive nature. However, the introduction section requires improvements, including the incorporation of the latest and most relevant sources for citations. Enhancing the introduction with upto-date references will strengthen the overall quality of the article and ensure its relevance in the field.

Title: It is adequate for the content and is informative, concise, and clear.

Abstract: It is comprehensive by itself. All the essential information for the article is included. Structure and length: The overall structure of the article is well-organized and well-balanced. The article is written at the standard length necessary for all the relevant information.

Logic: The article was written clearly and correctly. It is logically consistent. The article's cover the scientific quality rating. Importance and impact: The presented information are of significant importance and impact for advancement in the relevant field of research. However, the existing figures and table may not provide a comprehensive overview of the study. Therefore, it is recommended to include two additional graphical representations that would aid in enhancing the understanding of the research for a wider audience.

Figure 1: I am dissatisfied with the current representation of this figure, and I believe it would be beneficial to utilize online tools to create a visually appealing and aesthetically pleasing version. There are numerous online tools available that offer the capability to create attractive figures, and exploring these resources would be advantageous in improving the visual presentation of the figure and overall quality of manuscript.

Comment: It is highly recommended to create a distinct Figure 2 that focuses on illustrating the applications of ω3 oil in various contexts, including its uses in human consumption and aquaculture. This dedicated figure will enhance the clarity and visual representation of the diverse applications of ω3 oil across different domains.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for their overall very positive review notes above. 

Figure 1 has been revised in line with Reviewer #1 input as addressed above. 

A second Figure has been added as requested (p11).

 

Comment: Please create an additional figure (3) that provides a detailed representation of the comprehensive study, illustrating its key aspects and findings. It is recommended to place this new figure before the conclusion section to enhance the visual impact and clarity of the study's results.

Comment: The conclusion section currently contains excessive wording and lacks conciseness and effectiveness. To enhance its impact, it is recommended to streamline the content, ensuring a focus on the main issue at hand. By refining the conclusion section, we can create a more concise and impactful summary of the study's key findings and their implications.

 

Response:

The final section has seen further revised to enhance the conciseness and other aspects as requested. Newly provided figure 2 has summarised the impact of the development DHA canola that every 1-2 ha DHA canola can replace 10 tonnes fish in terms of DHA amount, which covers the suggested figure 3 for key aspects and findings.

 

References: Appropriate and adequate references to related works are covered sufficiently in the list. However, the authors requested to include some of the most recent references (after 2021).

Response:

More recent references and other reviews have been added as noted above for Reviewer #1 Responses. 

English: The English used in the article should be improved. There are some typographic and grammatical errors

Response:

The English also has been further updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend to accept the manuscript after thorough incorporation of the suggested corrections and changes.