Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier

Sirinapa Sasanam; Benjawan Thumthanaruk; Sombat Wijuntamook; Vasan Rattananupap; Savitri Vatanyoopaisarn; Chureerat Puttanlek; Dudsadee Uttapap; Solange I. Mussatto; Vilai Rungsardthong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269857

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 8, 2021
24 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Walid Elfalleh, Editor PONE-D-21-38835Extrusion and properties of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrierPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sasanam, 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. The reviewers raised several concerns regarding the manuscript quality. English language and the overall quality are below the journal standards. the authors are invited to revise the current version carefully according to reviewers’ comments to meet acceptance criteria. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Walid Elfalleh, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: We would like to thank the Research and Researchers for Industries (RRI) scholarship (PHD60I0062) and Mighty International Co., Ltd. for their financial support. Prof. Solange I. Mussatto acknowledges the support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark (grant number NNF20SA0066233). We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The funders play role in the study design, decision to publish and preparation of the manuscript. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: NO authors have competing interests. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. 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. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: The manuscript is highly lacking. English language needs major revision, some sentences make no sense. There are typos in the entire manuscript. . Write abbreviations in correct manner. Pay attention how the words may be broken in a grammatically correct manner, measuring unity also. Some sentences in the Introduction are misleading and/or incorrect, while some make no sense. There are no references for some of the statements and the introduction part in general is insubstantial, lacking, superficial, badly written and should be entirely rewritten. Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Extrusion and properties of process flavourings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” is interesting and has a scope for the journal. However, similar articles are published by the same group of researchers in other journals recently. Need to differentiate this work from the earlier works as this is not a new topic. Some of the queries or suggestions to improve the manuscript is given below. Major comments: 1. In color section: Please include the browning index of all the samples and discuss the relationship of Maillard reaction and browning index in detail. Also, discuss how the browning index affects the sensory score of the process flavorings. 2. Sensory evaluation section: What happens to the sensory evaluation of the sample MS45 in comparison with MS25. Is there any effect of torque on the sensory score? Because both samples had the same torque value (10 Nm/cm3). 3. Add the information related to future scope or how your products and findings help the food industry over existing products? 4. All tables, please check the statistical significance representations and analysis, especially the sensory data. Some places (table 3) it’s given as non-significant though there is significant variation in the values given. 5. Line no 134: Is it produced or used? 6. Space is not needed while expressing the ratio. Please do follow the same pattern throughout. 7. Line 252-254: Add reference. Kindly revise the manuscript incorporating all these suggestions. Reviewer #3: Overall, this is an interesting paper and can be accepted after revisions are made. Consider revising title to “Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” Line 29: revise grammar Line 37: change slightly to slight Line 102: the explanation of what extrusion is unclear and should be explained further Line 129-131: The reasoning behind the use of is not clear Line 207: remove space before 60°C Line 210: Since the process flavorings exhibited properties suitable for further application as meaty flavorings, why were the sensory panelists not trained with meaty flavorings. How sure are the authors that by training the panelist with the five basic tastes they can necessarily identify meaty flavors? Line 269: The authors should provide more explanation into what they mean by “resulted in lower concentration of initial precursor for the Maillard reaction” Line 284: change nonsignificantly to no significant Line 301: change volatile to volatiles ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269857.r001
Revision 1
8 May 2022 Author Response Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-38835 Extrusion and properties of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier Academic Editor Academic Editor Comments to Author: There are no comments. Dear Academic Editor Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. I also would like to express my sincere thanks to the reviewers for giving us comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been revised and improved as kindly suggested. Attached please find the revised manuscript and the responses to each reviewer. Looking forward to the acceptance of the paper. Best regards, Vilai Rungsardthong Referee(s)' Comments to 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 manuscript is highly lacking. English language needs major revision, some sentences make no sense. There are typos in the entire manuscript. Write abbreviations in correct manner. Pay attention how the words may be broken in a grammatically correct manner, measuring unity also. Some sentences in the Introduction are misleading and/or incorrect, while some make no sense. There are no references for some of the statements and the introduction part in general is insubstantial, lacking, superficial, badly written and should be entirely rewritten. Ans: Thank you very much for your comments. The manuscript was improved and rewritten point by point as detailed in the attached file. Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Extrusion and properties of process flavourings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” is interesting and has a scope for the journal. However, similar articles are published by the same group of researchers in other journals recently. Need to differentiate this work from the earlier works as this is not a new topic. Some of the queries or suggestions to improve the manuscript is given below. Ans: Thank you very much for spending your time looking through the manuscript and giving us the insightful comments and valuable suggestions. Though similar articles were published by our group recently, but the scope and content of this work is different from our previous works. The scopes and objectives of our previously published works are described as follows. 1) The first paper, Sasanam, S., Rungsardthong, V., Thumthanaruk, B., Wijuntamook, S., Rattananupap, V., Vatanyoopaisarn, S., Puttanlek, C., Uttapap, D., and Mussatto, S.I. (2021). Properties and volatile profile of process flavorings prepared from D-xylose with glycine, alanine or valine by direct extrusion method. Food Bioscience, 44, 101371. This study investigated the production of process flavorings by direct extrusion method using a model system consisted of 80% (w/w) D-xylose and glycine, alanine, or valine at 20% (w/w). The extruder’s barrel temperatures were controlled at 65, 80, and 50 °C. The aroma compounds in the obtained products were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass-spectrometry (GC-MS). In addition, some properties relevant for food application including solubility, water absorption index, and oil absorption capacity were also determined. 2) Sasanam, S., Rungsardthong, V., Thumthanaruk, B., Wijuntamook, S., Rattananupap, V., Vatanyoopaisarn, S., Puttanlek, C., Uttapap, D., and Mussatto, S.I. (2022). Production of process flavorings from methionine, thiamine with d-xylose or dextrose by direct extrusion: Physical properties and volatile profiles. Journal of Food Science, 87(3), 895-910. This research aimed to evaluate the use of methionine, thiamine and reducing sugars to develop process flavorings by direct extrusion, as a potential alternative to the conventional method. The mixed substrates consisted of methionine: D-xylose (MX), methionine: dextrose (MD), thiamine: D-xylose (TX), and thiamine: dextrose (TD) at 80:20 by weight. We had found some difficulties (high toque during the extrusion) in extruding the process flavorings from methionine and dextrose or glucose from the work described in the second paper. Modified starch was not used in our previous works. Consequently, in this work we had tried to solve the high torque problem occurred previously by using a modified starch as a carrier to facilitate the production process. In conclusion, this paper describes further study from the problem occurred in our previous works. The scopes and objectives were described in the “Introduction”. In addition, we have checked, revised, and improved the manuscript point by point as kindly suggested as following details. Major comments: 1. In color section: Please include the browning index of all the samples and discuss the relationship of Maillard reaction and browning index in detail. Also, discuss how the browning index affects the sensory score of the process flavorings. We have added the calculation of the browning index in the method as below. The browning index (BI) of each process flavorings was calculated based on the CIE values of L, a, and b* [28] as presented in the following equation. BI = 100 x (X – 0.31)/ 0.17 Where, X = (a* + 1.75 L) / (5.645L + a* - 3.012b) Please see: Line 180-184, Page 8 and Table 2 We have added more discussions in the manuscript. “The browning index (BI) is an important parameter to measure the brown color of process flavorings produced from the Maillard reaction [38]. The BI of each sample are presented in Table 2. After grinding, BI of all process flavorings tended to significantly decrease (p< 0.05). This could be due to the higher light scattering occurred when the extrudates were size reduced into finer particles. The BI of powdered extrudates of all formulations ranged 11.92- 38.12. However, the BI of each sample did not correlate well with the sensory acceptability in term of color attribute as presented in Table 3. The sensory panelists preferred the product color from the samples extruded with the modified starch 15-45% than the use of 5% modified starch, but the difference was very slight. However, all samples from the modified starch 5-45% obtained non-significant difference for overall acceptability (5.53 – 6.00).” Please see: Line 290-300, Page 12-13 We also have added these two references in the reference lists 28. Mohapatra D, Mishra S, Sutar N. 2010. Banana and its by-product utilization: an overview. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2010; 69: 323–329. 38. Zambrano-Zaragoza ML, Mercado-Silva E, Gutiérrez-Cortez E, Cornejo-Villegas M A, Quintanar-Guerrero D. The effect of nano-coatings with α-tocopherol and xanthan gum on shelf-life and browning index of fresh-cut “Red Delicious” apples. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2014; 22: 188-196. doi.10.1016/j.ifset.2013.09.008 Please see: Line 526-527 and 555-558, page 22-23 Table 2. Color indicators (L, a, b) of the extruded process flavorings produced from various ratios of substrates, before and after size reduction into powder. Sample Methionine: dextrose: modified starch: water Extrudates Powdered extrudates L* a* b* BI1 L* a* b* BI2 MS5 72:18:5:5 79.33 ± 2.51a 6.00 ± 0.00c 33.33 ± 2.51bc 60.09 ± 5.11d 89.00 ± 2.64ab 3.00 ± 0.00a 24.66 ± 0.57b 34.26 ± 0.89b MS15 64:16:15:5 71.66 ± 4.50b 6.00 ± 2.00a 36.00 ± 2.64ab 80.19 ± 14.22b 90.33 ± 3.05ab 1.66 ± 0.57bc 28.33 ± 1.52a 38.12 ± 1.88a MS25 56:14:25:5 68.00 ± 5.00b 9.33 ± 2.08ab 34.00 ± 1.00b 99.12 ± 42.76a 87.00 ± 2.00b 1.00 ± 0.00d 22.00 ± 1.00c 29.36 ± 2.03c MS35 42:12:35:5 83.00 ± 6.92a 6.66 ± 0.57bc 28.00 ± 2.00d 55.96 ± 8.43e 87.66 ± 3.05b 2.33 ± 0.57ab 9.66 ± 0.57d 13.38 ± 1.28d MS45 40:10:45:5 88.00 ± 2.14a 7.33 ± 1.52abc 37.00 ± 4.00a 73.64 ± 22.55c 93.00 ± 2.57a 1.00 ± 1.00cd 9.33 ± 0.57d 11.92 ± 1.68d Means ± SD in the same column, followed by the same letter, are not significantly different at p<0.05. BI1 = Browning index of extrudates BI2 = Browning index of powdered extrudates 2. Sensory evaluation section: What happens to the sensory evaluation of the sample MS45 in comparison with MS25. Is there any effect of torque on the sensory score? Because both samples had the same torque value (10 Nm/cm3). Ans: Thank you very much for your insight question. The results showed that the addition of higher modified starch could facilitate the extrusion with lower torque, for example for the MS25 and MS45. Running the samples with higher ratio of the modified starch tended to exhibit lower torque during the extrusion and yielded samples with lower BI. However, both samples still obtained non-significant difference for color preference. Increasing the ratio of the modified starch resulted to a lower concentration of methionine and dextrose in the sample mix thus a lower concentration of the brown products from the Maillard reaction was generated. We have added “The results showed that the addition of higher modified starch could facilitate the extrusion with lower torque, for example for the MS25 and MS45. Running the samples with higher ratio of the modified starch tended to exhibit lower torque during the extrusion and yielded samples with lower BI. However, both samples still obtained non-significant difference for color preference. Increasing the ratio of the modified starch resulted to a lower concentration of methionine and dextrose in the sample mix thus a lower concentration of the brown products from the Maillard reaction was generated.” in the manuscript. Please see: Line 310-316, Page 13 3. Add the information related to future scope or how your products and findings help the food industry over existing products? Ans: We have added more information related to future investigation from our findings. Thank you very much “The findings from our work would be potentially help the food industry to use the extrusion to produce process flavorings. The use of carriers including modified starches can facilitate the extrusion to be controlled more efficiently. In addition, modification of the type and concentration of sugars, amino acids, and carriers would be beneficial for further applications.” Please see: Line 322-326, Page 14 4. All tables, please check the statistical significance representations and analysis, especially the sensory data. Some places (table 3) it’s given as non-significant though there is significant variation in the values given. Ans: Thank you very much for your comments. We have carefully checked the statistical analysis and found that they are correctly presented. Though the data in Table 3 seemed to be significantly different, they are mostly non-significantly different based on statistical analysis. This could be because of the high SD of each result. We have attached the analysis data by SPSS as follows: Results in Table 3 Table 3. Sensory evaluation of process flavorings produced from various ratios of mixed substrates using a 9-point scoring scale. Sample Methionine: dextrose: modified starch: water Aromans Taste ns Color Water solubilityns Overall acceptabilityns MS5 72:18:5:5 5.40 ± 2.35 5.13 ± 1.99 5.20 ± 1.74b 6.60 ± 1.12 5.53 ± 1.76 MS15 64:16:15:5 5.66 ± 1.67 5.06 ± 1.94 6.80 ± 1.37a 6.80 ± 1.01 5.86 ± 1.64 MS25 56:14:25:5 5.46 ± 1.68 6.20 ± 0.07 5.60 ± 1.68ab 7.00 ± 0.84 6.00 ± 1.25 MS35 42:12:35:5 5.26 ± 1.94 5.40 ± 1.95 6.00 ± 1.81a 6.20 ± 1.26 5.66 ± 1.67 MS45 40:10:45:5 5.00 ± 1.64 5.80 ± 1.20 5.60 ± 1.80ab 7.00 ± 0.65 5.66 ± 1.44 The temperature in zones 1, 2 was controlled at 100, 120 °C with a screw speed of 30 rpm. Means ± SD in the same column, followed by the same letter, are not significantly different at p<0.05. ns: Not significantly different at p<0.05 Output from the statistical program (SPSS) Descriptives Aroma N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 (MS5) 15 5.4000 2.35433 .60788 4.0962 6.7038 1.00 8.00 2.00 (MS15) 15 5.6667 1.67616 .43278 4.7384 6.5949 3.00 8.00 3.00 (MS25) 15 5.4667 1.68466 .43498 4.5337 6.3996 2.00 9.00 4.00 (MS35) 15 5.2667 1.94447 .50206 4.1899 6.3435 1.00 8.00 5.00 (MS45) 15 5.0000 1.64751 .42538 4.0876 5.9124 2.00 7.00 Total 75 5.3600 1.84274 .21278 4.9360 5.7840 1.00 9.00 Homogeneous Subsets Aroma Aroma N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Duncana dimension1 5.00 15 5.0000 4.00 15 5.2667 1.00 15 5.4000 3.00 15 5.4667 2.00 15 5.6667 Sig. .397 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15.000. Descriptives Taste N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 (MS5) 15 5.1333 1.99523 .51517 4.0284 6.2383 2.00 8.00 2.00 (MS15) 15 5.0667 1.94447 .50206 3.9899 6.1435 2.00 8.00 3.00 (MS25) 15 6.2000 .77460 .20000 5.7710 6.6290 5.00 8.00 4.00 (MS35) 15 5.4000 1.95667 .50521 4.3164 6.4836 1.00 8.00 5.00 (MS45) 15 5.8000 1.20712 .31168 5.1315 6.4685 4.00 8.00 Total 75 5.5200 1.66328 .19206 5.1373 5.9027 1.00 8.00 Homogeneous Subsets Taste Taste N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Duncana dimension1 2.00 15 5.0667 1.00 15 5.1333 4.00 15 5.4000 5.00 15 5.8000 3.00 15 6.2000 Sig. .098 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15.000. Descriptives Color N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 (MS5) 15 5.2000 1.74028 .44934 4.2363 6.1637 2.00 7.00 2.00 (MS15) 15 6.8000 1.37321 .35456 6.0395 7.5605 5.00 9.00 3.00 (MS25) 15 5.6000 1.68184 .43425 4.6686 6.5314 1.00 8.00 4.00 (MS35) 15 6.0000 1.81265 .46803 4.9962 7.0038 2.00 8.00 5.00 (MS45) 15 5.6000 1.80476 .46599 4.6006 6.5994 2.00 8.00 Total 75 5.8400 1.73236 .20004 5.4414 6.2386 1.00 9.00 Homogeneous Subsets Color Color N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 Duncana dimension1 1.00 15 5.2000 3.00 15 5.6000 5.6000 5.00 15 5.6000 5.6000 4.00 15 6.0000 6.0000 2.00 15 6.8000 Sig. .244 .079 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15.000. Descriptives Water solubility N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 (MS5) 15 6.6000 1.12122 .28950 5.9791 7.2209 4.00 8.00 2.00 (MS15) 15 6.8000 1.01419 .26186 6.2384 7.3616 4.00 8.00 3.00 (MS25) 15 7.0000 .84515 .21822 6.5320 7.4680 5.00 8.00 4.00 (MS35) 15 6.2000 1.26491 .32660 5.4995 6.9005 4.00 8.00 5.00 (MS45) 15 7.0000 .65465 .16903 6.6375 7.3625 6.00 8.00 Total 75 6.7200 1.02086 .11788 6.4851 6.9549 4.00 8.00 Homogeneous Subsets Water solubility Water solubility N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Duncana dimension1 4.00 15 6.2000 1.00 15 6.6000 2.00 15 6.8000 3.00 15 7.0000 5.00 15 7.0000 Sig. .054 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15.000. Descriptives Overall acceptability N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 (MS5) 15 5.5333 1.76743 .45635 4.5546 6.5121 2.00 8.00 2.00 (MS15) 15 5.8667 1.64172 .42389 4.9575 6.7758 3.00 9.00 3.00 (MS25) 15 6.0000 1.25357 .32367 5.3058 6.6942 4.00 8.00 4.00 (MS35) 15 5.6667 1.67616 .43278 4.7384 6.5949 2.00 8.00 5.00 (MS45) 15 5.6667 1.44749 .37374 4.8651 6.4683 4.00 8.00 Total 75 5.7467 1.53423 .17716 5.3937 6.0997 2.00 9.00 Homogeneous Subsets Overall acceptability Overall acceptability N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Duncana dimension1 1.00 15 5.5333 4.00 15 5.6667 5.00 15 5.6667 2.00 15 5.8667 3.00 15 6.0000 Sig. .477 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15.000. 5. Line no 134: Is it produced or used? Ans: Edited as suggested. Thank you very much. Please see: Line 136, Page 6 6. Space is not needed while expressing the ratio. Please do follow the same pattern throughout. Ans: Edited as kindly suggested. Thank you very much. 7. Line 252-254: Add reference. Kindly revise the manuscript incorporating all these suggestions. Ans: We have added the reference in the text and reference lists as kindly suggested. Thank you very much. Reference in text However, the role of the amino acid in the Maillard reaction could be separated into two parts: the first part is to promote a sugar-amino condensation, while the second part is to generate specific aromas via the Strecker degradation [26]. Please see: Line 259-262, Page 11 Reference in reference lists 26. Sasanam S, Rungsardthong V, Thumthanaruk B, Wijuntamook S, Rattananupap V, Wijuntamook S, et al. Properties and volatile profile of process flavorings prepared from D-xylose with glycine, alanine or valine by direct extrusion method. Food Biosci. 2021a: 101371. doi.10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101371. Please see: Line 521-524, Page 22 Reviewer #3: Overall, this is an interesting paper and can be accepted after revisions are made. Ans: Thank you very much for your kind comments. We have checked, revised, and improved the manuscript point by point as kindly suggested as detailed following. 1.Consider revising title to “Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” Ans: Thank you very much. We have revised the title from “Extrusion and properties of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” to “Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier” as kindly suggested. Please see: Title (line 1-2), Page 1 2. Line 29: revise grammar Ans: We have edited the sentence and added “Five formulations of process flavorings with different ratios of methionine: dextrose: modified starch: water as MS5 (72:18:5:5), MS15 (64:16:15:5), MS25 (56:14:25:5), MS35 (42:12:35:5), and MS45 (40:10:45:5) were prepared and feded into the extruder.” in the manuscript. Thank you very much. Please see: Abstract, Line 28-31, Page 2 3. Line 37: change slightly to slight Ans: Edited Thank you very much. Please see: Line 37, page 2 4. Line 102: the explanation of what extrusion is unclear and should be explained further Ans: we have revised and explained about what extrusion as following: “Extrusion process is a potential modern, green and environment-friendly technology that combines several processing steps such as mixing, cooking, sterilization, heating, and forming.” Thank you very much. Please see: Line 102-104, Page 5 5. Line 129-131: The reasoning behind the use of is not clear Ans: We have revised and added “However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the use of modified cassava starch as a carrier to solve the problems related to the high torque, too high viscosity, and stickiness of the raw materials to produce process flavorings by extrusion.” Thank you very much. Please see: Line 128-131, Page 6 6. Line 207: remove space before 60°C Ans: Edited. Thank you very much. Please see: Line 216, Page 9 7. Line 210: Since the process flavorings exhibited properties suitable for further application as meaty flavorings, why were the sensory panelists not trained with meaty flavorings. How sure are the authors that by training the panelist with the five basic tastes they can necessarily identify meaty flavors? Ans: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. All trained panelists are specialists in our collaborated flavor company who has long experiences in the production and quality control for the process flavorings (both for local consumption and for the export to many countries). They were trained for five basic tastes as well as for the meaty flavorings since meaty flavorings are one of the main products from this company. The company have a standard program training for the panelists in their workplace (confidential data). Therefore, we have confidence that the trained panelists are suitable for further application in meaty flavorings in the future. 8. Line 269: The authors should provide more explanation into what they mean by “resulted in lower concentration of initial precursor for the Maillard reaction” Ans: We have revised the sentence to “Using high ratio of the modified starch from 5% to 45% led to a decrease in the concentration of methionine and dextrose which were the initial precursors for the Maillard reaction in the system.” in the manuscript. Please see: Line 276-278, page 12 9.Line 284: change nonsignificantly to no significant Ans: Revised. Thank you very much. Please see: Line 304, page 13 10. Line 301: change volatile to volatiles Ans: Edited. Thank you very much. Please see: Line 332, page 14 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 2-Revised-Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269857.r002
30 May 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Sajid Arshad, Editor Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier PONE-D-21-38835R1 Dear Sirinapa Sasanam, 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, Muhammad Sajid Arshad Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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: 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: Yes 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 manuscript was revised and re-written taking into consideration the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. The current version has been improved. Therefore, It is suitable for publication. Reviewer #3: All revisions appropriately done. Paper is now very interesting to read and should be accepted for publication ****** 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 #3: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269857.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Sajid Arshad, Editor PONE-D-21-38835R1 Extrusion of process flavorings from methionine and dextrose using modified starch as a carrier Dear Dr. Sasanam: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Sajid Arshad Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269857.r004

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 .