Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten-free bread

Dorota Gumul; Jarosław Korus; Magdalena Surma; Rafał Ziobro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229841

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 13, 2019
31 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Aneta Agnieszka Koronowicz, Editor PONE-D-19-31585 Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red 1 and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten free bread PLOS ONE Dear prof Gumul, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Major revisions are necessary to improve the paper. You have to revise the paper in accordance with editor and reviewers comments. Please create an "author response" file with a point-by-point response to each comment, clearly describing how they have been addressed in the revision version. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Aneta Agnieszka Koronowicz, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. 3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. Additional Editor Comments: In the study was performed sensory analysis, but that no information is provided regarding participant consent (it is necessary for prospective studies, even in cases where the study has been deemed on “low risk” by an ethics committee). Please complete this information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, your paper entitled: ‘Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten free bread’ has been sent for my consideration. In it, you investigate the influence of different levels of potato pulp from red and purple potatoes on the content of polyphenols and fiber in gluten-free breads. It is a good, interesting work, however during the reading, the following remarks came to my mind: General: I suggest replacing 'gluten free' with 'gluten-free'. The authors use both forms at work. This should be unified. Lines 23-24: This is not entirely true. The use of whole-grain flour, e.g. from amaranth or quinoa, also provides bioactive compounds. Besides, are only antioxidants important compounds? Please, in the summary and in the introduction, approach the subject more broadly. Keywords: Please avoid repeating the words used in the title. Lines 39-41: How much potato pulp is produced during starch production? Please mention the second by-product, i.e. potato juice and (briefly) the possibilities of its use. General: The authors point out in the introduction that the gluten-free diet is low in minerals, protein, etc. Then they add potato pulp to enrich the bread with fiber, which hinders the absorption of nutrients. Can the authors explain how increasing dietary fiber content can help in qualitative malnutrition? Lines 105; 163; 169 etc.: ‘freeze dried’ -> ‘freeze-dried’ Line 106: total starch or maybe just one of them? Potato pulp contains much more water than starch. Did the replacement include water content? Line 120: Please convert rpm to g or rcf Section ‘Acrylamide content’: The authors correctly described the results obtained, however, please refer to food safety. What are the limits for AA? Reviewer #2: The authors of the manuscript raise a very important, from the point of view of the circular economy, aspect of by-product management that arises after the isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes. Among other things, due to the fact that the remaining pulp is rich in health-related compounds, both in the nature of polyphenols and dietary fiber, a possible direction of its use could be its use as an innovative fraction of dietary fiber, for example in the production of gluten-free bread. The obtained results allow us to plant a successfully applied test of pulp application, whereas red potato pulp is characterized by better health potential. In conclusion, the manuscript is interesting, zarówno ze wzgledu na aspekt poznawczy, jak I aplikacyjny. I recommend the manuscript to be published. I suggest minor editorial changes: Line 3 - put the star symbol "" next to Gumul - this person is the author of correspondence Line 37 – it is suggested to add at least a literature reference in which the pulp production method would be described. Line 120 – 4000 rpm – spin speed should be expressed as the value of centrifugal force "g" Line 121 – reference should be given Line 126,128,129,130,132 – the bibliography entry should be standardized Line 143, 195 – Marconi et al. should be Matrconi et al. W Tab. 1, 2, 3, 4 - g/100g d.m. should be g 100g-1 d.m. significance levels (letters) should be placed in superscript - there should be a dots after the titles of the tables and figures - in table 4 – microgramy/kg should be µg kg-1 - in table 4 the acrylamide values should be given to the first decimal place - Line 351 - at the end of a sentence put a dot. ******* 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-31585_reviewer.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r001
Revision 1
31 Jan 2020 Author Response Additional Editor Comments: In the study was performed sensory analysis, but that no information is provided regarding participant consent (it is necessary for prospective studies, even in cases where the study has been deemed on “low risk” by an ethics committee). Please complete this information. According to the regulations in Poland, the consent of the bioethics committee is required only with respect to medical experiments (Regulation of the Minister of Health and Social Welfare on detailed rules for appointing and financing and the mode of operation of bioethics committees - Dz. U. 1999 No 47 item 480). In turn, the Act on the professions of a doctor and a dentist (Journal of Laws 2019, item 537 as amended - hereinafter: JoL) distinguishes two types of medical experiments - therapeutic and research. According to article 21 section 2 JoL "A medical experiment is the introduction by a doctor of new or only partially tested diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic methods ...". And "A research experiment is primarily aimed at extending medical knowledge ...". (Article 21(3) JoL). In addition, in accordance with the rules of the Pharmaceutical Law Act (Journal of Laws 2019, item 499, as amended), the tasks of the Bioethics Committee also include providing opinions on clinical trials of medicinal products (Article 37l, paragraph 1). Gluten-free breads containing potato pulp are not a medicinal product but a food product. It follows from the above, that in the case of the studies presented in our article the consent of the bioethics committee was not required. Sensory evaluation is widely used in our studies on food products and the committee's consent was never required when publishing the results of such studies. Moreover, it does not appear in scientific publications of other authors known to us. All the panelists who participated in sensory evaluation voluntarily agreed to be involved in the survey and were informed about the type of additive included in bread formulation. Example papers; Jarosław Korus, Mariusz Witczak, Rafał Ziobro, Lesław Juszczak, Hemp (Cannabis sativa subsp sativa) flour and protein preparation as natural nutrients and structure forming agents in starch based gluten-free bread Lwt-Food Science and Technology, 2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.05.046 Magdalena Krystyjan, Dorota Gumul, Rafał Ziobro, Marek Sikora, The Effect of Inulin as a Fat Replacement on Dough and Biscuit Properties, Journal of Food Quality, 2015, 38 (15), 305-315 Gumul D, Areczuk A., Ziobro R., Ivanisova E, Zieba T. The influence of freeze-dried red and purple potatoes on content of bioactive polyphenolic compounds and quality properties of extruded maize snacks. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops and Foods. 2017, doi. 10.3920.QAS. 2016.1055. Reviewer’s comments Review Comments to the Author Thank you very much for the comments. We have tried to correct the manuscript according to the suggestions. Please find below the answers for specific comments: Reviewer #1: General: I suggest replacing ‘gluten free’ with ‘gluten-free’;. The authors use both forms at work. This should be unified. applied Lines 23-24: This is not entirely true. The use of whole-grain flour, e.g. from amaranth or quinoa, also provides bioactive compounds. Besides, are only antioxidants important compounds? Please, in the summary and in the introduction, approach the subject more broadly. Appropriate text was added to the abstract and the introduction. Keywords: Please avoid repeating the words used in the title. Corrected according to the suggestion. Lines 39-41: How much potato pulp is produced during starch production? Please mention the second by-product, i.e. potato juice and (briefly) the possibilities of its use. Appropriate text was added to the introduction. General: The authors point out in the introduction that the gluten-free diet is low in minerals, protein, etc. Then they add potato pulp to enrich the bread with fiber, which hinders the absorption of nutrients. Can the authors explain how increasing dietary fiber content can help in qualitative malnutrition? The content of minerals and other nutrients was increased by the applied addition of potato pulp. Appropriate text explaining this issue was added to the introduction. Lines 105; 163; 169 etc.: ‘freeze dried’ -> ‘freeze-dried’ corrected Line 106: total starch or maybe just one of them? Potato pulp contains much more water than starch. Did the replacement include water content? corrected Line 120: Please convert rpm to g or rcf corrected Section ‘Acrylamide content’ The authors correctly described the results obtained, however, please refer to food safety. What are the limits for AA? Appropriate text was added to the section. Reviewer #2 Line 3 - put the star symbol ‘’ next to Gumul - this person is the author of correspondence corrected Line 37 – it is suggested to add at least a literature reference in which the pulp production method would be described. Additional reference was added. Line 120 – 4000 rpm – spin speed should be expressed as the value of centrifugal force “g” corrected Line 121 – reference should be given Additional reference was added. Line 126,128,129,130,132 – the bibliography entry should be standardized corrected Line 143, 195 – Marconi et al. should be Matrconi et al. corrected Tab. 1, 2, 3, 4 - g/100g d.m. should be g 100g-1 d.m. corrected significance levels (letters) should be placed in superscript - there should be a dots after the corrected titles of the tables and figures - in table 4 – microgramy/kg should be µg kg-1 corrected - in table 4 the acrylamide values should be given to the first decimal place corrected - Line 351 - at the end of a sentence put a dot. corrected Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to rewievers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r002
27 May 2020 Decision Letter - Juergen Koenig, Editor PONE-D-19-31585R1 Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten-free bread PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gumul, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Juergen Koenig Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have tried a lot to improve the whole document. The comments from the rest of the reviewers helped a lot. Considering the important improvements I believe the work has reached an acceptable level and it can be published on PLoS One. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript-PONE-D-19-31585-Review Berghofer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r003
Revision 2
19 Jun 2020 Author Response The answers to prof. Berghofer's comments are submitted in the attached file (only the comments, the changes in the text are not included). We would like to thank for the comments, as they substantially improved the quality of the paper. Best regards Dorota Gumul and co-workers Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript-PONE-D-19-31585-Review Berghofer - responses.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r004
6 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Juergen Koenig, Editor Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten-free bread PONE-D-19-31585R2 Dear Dr. Gumul, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Juergen Koenig Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Juergen Koenig, Editor PONE-D-19-31585R1 Pulp obtained after isolation of starch from red and purple potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) as an innovative ingredient in the production of gluten-free bread Dear Dr. Gumul: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Aneta Agnieszka Koronowicz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229841.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .