Physical Contact between Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Alters Cell Growth and Molecular Interactions in Grape Must

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Marina et al submitted the manuscript entitled: “Physical contact between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and 2 Torulaspora delbrueckii in grape must alters cell growth and mo-3 lecular interactions”, in which they reported syngeneic effect of S. Cerevisiae and T. Delbrueckii in alcoholic fermentations and wine aroma. Interactions between the two fungi were further proved by proteomics study. Generally, this work contains sufficient data for publication and the subject is also coincide with special issue: Featured Papers in Wine, Spirits and Oenological Products Section. But the manuscript is not well-organized and need some editing.

The authors can refer to the suggestions below to improve the manuscript.

1. Please reconfirm all the figures. For figure 1, it is hard to get the meanings of the figure. For figure 2A and figure 4, some dislocations appeared. And for figure 8, the resolution is not enough and seems blur.

 

2. Some comments on the proteomic analysis:

a) I assumed authors chose “pure culture with inoculation in two compartments” as the standard group. I suggested to use the sample of high initial concentration because the mixture of 2 fungi actually increased the density. That would be one possible reason why the authors mainly identified metabolic-related enzymes (protein from respiratory chain, TCA cycles and others). Obviously, there will be a change of protein related to metabolism when fungi density changed, but it might be not relevant with interactions between 2 fungi.

b) I do not think the authors identified key protein changes in interactions between 2 fungi. The syngeneic effects of 2 fungi is more related to some minor secondary metabolites but not main metabolites mentioned, such as concentration of CO2 and ethanol, as it has been proved from the data from “pure cultures inoculating species in one compartments”. Based on this, it is suggested that the authors should re-evaluate the existing proteomics data.

3. Some comments on formats and typos:

a) Line 165, full form of 4MSP/3SH/3SHA should be added here.

b) Line 287, a “[ref]” appeared here.

c) Line 439, units and denotes of superscripts are missing.

d) Line 497, a “table x” appeared here. And I did not find the volcano plot in supplemental data.

 

Included in attachment.

Author Response

Please see the attachement, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am very grateful you for the invitation to review manuscript beverages-2554588 by Chasseriaud and coauthors "Physical contact between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii in grape must alters cell growth and molecular interactions”. The aim of this work was to confirm the existence of cell-cell contact interaction between two industrial strains of S. cerevisiae and T. delbrueckii in Sauvignon grape must. The work is interesting but needs adjustments to increase the quality of the material.

 

Comments:

- Abstract, lines 15-16: It is important to highlight the advantages of the microbial association.

- Abstract: Please indicate a better step-by-step about the work, including concentration used.

- Abstract: Present the most specific results. Insert numerical results related to the main findings of the work. A better explanation of what "increase" or other terms should be given.

- Abstract: Insert and improve abstract conclusion.

- Keywords: Change the repeated keywords by different words from the title.

- Lines 41-44: Exploring the biochemical transformations of wine production.

- Line 49: Check the sentence “...”.

- Line 50, 53 and other: Check the correct citation of references.

- Lines 100-101: Include necessary precautions for the use of combined microorganisms.

- Line 104: AF?

- Lines 107-110: Include conclusion at the end of the abstract or in the appropriate item.

- Lines 124-125: Properly format the sentence.

- Line 138: Standardize the use of units “min. / minutes, and Other”.

- Line 157: Change “figure 1” to “Figure ‘”.

- Line 181-186: Check the continuation of the sentence.

- Line 186: ? and? Sequence on line 188? Adjust.

- Line 248, 252 and others: Change “ul” to “uL”.

- Line 346: Change “table 1” to “Table 1”.

- Line 349, “« density »”: Use more descriptive sentence.

- Figure 6: It has low resolution and screen print markings. Insert appropriate and quality figure.

- Discussion: A better explanation about the advantages and disadvantages of the method should be presented.

- Discussion: Better explore biochemical issues in wine production.

Author Response

Please see the attachement, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 117-120 - the authors should briefly describe this methodology for cell concentration and viability.

Line 125-126 - please remove the spaces.

Line 113-114 - Elaborate on the rationale for using the specific commercial strains (T. delbrueckii Zymaflore® Alpha and S. cerevisiae Zymaflore® X5) and their relevance to the study.

Clarify the mechanisms or factors underlying the observed oxidative stress-induced T. delbrueckii mortality. This could include a discussion of potential reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and detoxification pathways.

 

Discuss more about potential practical applications of the findings for winemakers seeking to optimize mixed culture fermentation processes.

The English quality of the manuscript is fine

Author Response

Please see the attachement, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript presents an excellent quality both in its writing and in the design of the experiments and presentation. It presents a large experimental volume, very well grounded discussion with the literature (more than 100 references), and very promising results for wine production.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript. Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have given satisfactory replies to my concerns. No further issues need to be addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have improved the quality of the work

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors responded properly to my inquiries. I congratulate them and I consider the article proper to be accepted. Thank you!