Bioactive Compounds from and against Yeasts in the One Health Context: A Comprehensive Review
, Anderson Giehl 1,2, Rafael Dorighello Cadamuro 1,3, Iara Zanella Guterres 3,4, Angela Alves dos Santos 5, Stefany Kell Bressan 2, Larissa Werlang 2, Boris U. Stambuk 1,5, Gislaine Fongaro 1,3, Izabella ThaÃs Silva 1,3,4 and Sérgio Luiz Alves, Jr. 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript represents an important review in the field of bioactive compounds production by yeasts. Authors did an impressive job revising the main sub-topics on the field, even though they missed very important references in the field. This reviewer understands the difficult task of being up to date on the bibliography, but without these important citations it is not possible to consider this review accurate.
Bellow, I list some of the mandatory citations in the field (indicating the DOIs), indicating the chapters/paragraphs in which they should be included, but it is up to the authors to move them elsewhere.
- Line 47 - two important citations are missing, in particular:
* 10.1016/B978-0-12-803622-8.00009-4
* 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.04.006
- Lines 70-133. These important works need to be included:
* 10.3390/en8065040
* 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.08.010
* 10.3390/microorganisms8111809
* 10.1186/s12866-020-01742-6
- Chapter 4 - Using yeast as "microbial cell factories"
Being this a comprehensive review, authors should begin this chapter focusing also in yeast as "natural" producers of added-value compounds, before moving on to the genome editing approaches, and later to adaptive laboratorial evolution uses. In the view of this reviewer, this chapter should be organized first showing the capacity of yeasts to produce naturally important products, showing within this, their use in food industires in which metabolic engineering is not allowed.
For this, important citations should be included:
* 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.08.018
* 10.3390/jof8060569
* 10.1007/s00253-010-3019-z
* 10.1038/nbt1191-1067
* 10.3390/jof7090712
* 10.1093/femsyr/fox057
* 10.1038/ja.2016.121
* 10.1186/s12864-017-3816-1
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1
We thank the reviewer for their kind and encouraging comments, which significantly improved our manuscript.
We respectfully disagreed with the inclusion of the following references, because we did not see any significant relevance to our work:
- 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.04.006;
- 10.3390/en8065040.
In our view, the papers above do not mention any bioactive purposes of the bioproducts they address. However, the other suggested references were properly included (see lines 47 and 126-132 of the revised manuscript).
Regarding section "4. Using yeasts as 'microbial cell factories' of bioactive compounds", the reviewer's suggestions were entirely incorporated into the text (see lines 347-363 and 398-400 of the revised manuscript).
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a review summarizing the bioactive compounds produced by non-engineered yeast, bioactive compounds against yeast and using yeasts as “microbial cell factories” of bioactive compounds. This review is interesting and well written. Before publication, the author needs to pay attention to the following issues:
1. In Table 1, some molecular formula pictures are deformed and have low resolution. Please adjust them.
2. The sentence in line 78 to 79 is a repeat of the sentence in line 70 to 71. Please modify them.
3. The sentence in line 82 to 83 gives the reviewer an ambiguity that melatonin is only synthesized by these three yeast species.
4. The author should briefly define “bioactive compounds” in “2. Bioactive compounds naturally produced by non-engineered yeasts”, rather than in “4. Using yeasts as "microbial cell factories" of bioactive compounds”.
5. The reviewer considers that it seems more appropriate for Lines 55 to 66 to be placed under "2. Bioactive compounds naturally produced by non-engineered yeasts".
6. In Table 2, spaces were inserted incorrectly in "Target yeas ttested".
7. “Bioactive compounds against yeast" mainly summarizes bioactive compounds synthesized by microorganisms, so it is suggested to modify the subtitle, which seems too broad.
8. Please check the layout of Table 3.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #2
We are thankful to the reviewer for their kind and encouraging comments, which significantly improved our manuscript.
1. In Table 1, some molecular formula pictures are deformed and have low resolution. Please adjust them.
Response: The reviewer is right; we made the required adjustments.
2. The sentence in line 78 to 79 is a repeat of the sentence in line 70 to 71. Please modify them.
Response: We thank the reviewer's comment. In lines 70-71, we were referring to bioactive compounds in general, while lines 78-79 specifically addressed glutathione. However, to dismiss any misunderstanding, we modified the sentence in lines 78-79 (now lines 83-84 of the revised version).
3. The sentence in line 82 to 83 gives the reviewer an ambiguity that melatonin is only synthesized by these three yeast species.
Response: The reviewer is right; we believe we have now eliminated the ambiguity (see lines 89-90).
4. The author should briefly define "bioactive compounds" in "2. Bioactive compounds naturally produced by non-engineered yeasts", rather than in "4. Using yeasts as "microbial cell factories" of bioactive compounds".
Response: The reviewer is entirely correct; we moved to section 2, the definition we had previously presented in section 4 (see lines 55-57 in the revised manuscript).
5. The reviewer considers that it seems more appropriate for Lines 55 to 66 to be placed under "2. Bioactive compounds naturally produced by non-engineered yeasts".
Response: We thank the reviewer's comment; the subtitle "2.1. Pharmacological outlooks" is now starting in line 75 ("Notably, the main species used in the production of bioactive compounds...").
6. In Table 2, spaces were inserted incorrectly in "Target yeas ttested".
Response: The reviewer is right; the spaces have been corrected.
7. "Bioactive compounds against yeast" mainly summarizes bioactive compounds synthesized by microorganisms, so it is suggested to modify the subtitle, which seems too broad.
Response: We thank the reviewer's suggestion; we now made the section's title more specific.
8. Please check the layout of Table 3.
Response: We appreciated the reviewer's comment. The layout of table 3 has been adjusted.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The suggestions were almost all incorporated, and I respect the authors' disagreement with the remaining.
In this way, I recommend acceptance in current form.
