Development of a plant-based dessert using araticum pulp and chickpea extract: Physicochemical, microbiological, antioxidant, and sensory characterization

Maria Carolina Mesquita; Márcio Antônio Mendonça; Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho; Sandra Fernandes Arruda; Eliana dos Santos Leandro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307640

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 8, 2024
14 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Ghulam Khaliq, Editor PONE-D-24-08819Development of a plant-based dessert using araticum pulp and chickpea extract: physicochemical, microbiological, antioxidant, and sensory characterizationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mesquita, 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 29 2024 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, Ghulam Khaliq, 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 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [We thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) of Brazil for the support with the scholarship, as well as the financial backing provided by the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF) – Process: 00193-00000104/2019-86.] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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". 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-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: N/A ****** 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: Thank you for providing the opportunity to review the manuscript: Development of a plant-based dessert using araticum pulp and chickpea extract: physicochemical, microbiological, antioxidant, and sensory characterization. The study is quite novel, and relevant considering the demand for plant based foods due to their health benefits. However, some results are missing such as Tables 1 to 4. These results need to be provided in order to make a decision on the manuscript. Abstract The authors should improve the presentation of their results. For instance, rather than just stating the measured attributes values, they should indicate the magnitude of increase or decrease. The authors should include the nutritional analysis results to be able compare their product with dairy products such as yogurt. Material and methods How were the fruits sanitized and the pulp extracted from the fruit? The authors should summarize the method they used to prepare chickpea extract and then refer to Figure 1. Determination of centesimal composition and energy value. What do authors mean by centestimal? Is there not a better, common and simpler word that they can use? Why did the authors not include a control sample in their microbiological analyses? Why did the authors not include the relative humidity at 4 °C of their storage facilities. At such low temperature moisture migration between the environment and the product is likely. The authors should check if 25,400 xg is really xg not rpm Why did the authors not measure sensory properties such as consistency or stability? I am quite sure the product did not remain consistent and stable throughout the 28 days of storage. This is important if the experimental idea is to be commercialized and if whether additives are needed or not. Results and discussion Some results described in the manuscript are missing for instance, Tables 1, 2 and 3. The authors should improve the discussion of their results. For instance, they should describe the formulations fully or put the % of the ingredients in brackets for easy tracking. e.g., F1 (80:20). This makes it easier for the reader to follow. Is it not that the pH of the dessert is related to the organic acids in the fruit used? The authors should be able to link the change in pH to TSS results. Reviewer #2: 1. THE ABSTRAC SUMMARIZES THE CONTEN: 1 ST PARAGARAPH IS TOO LENGTHY 2. AUTHOURS CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES ABOUT FUNDING SOURCE 3 KEY WORDS MUST BE RE-ARRANGED 4.ITRODUCTION[NTRODUCTION SHOULD NOT CONTAIN SO MANY FIGURES OF OTHER PEOPLES WORKS] 5. MATERIALS AND METHODS[what quantity of fruits were purchased, stored for how long before commencement of research, where is the design of the experiment, was the design CRD, as laboratory condition?, 6. RESULST AND DISCUSSION[rewrite 1ST PARAGRAPH, Centesimal composition was NOT STATED IN METODS WHY PRESENT RESULTS, NO TABLE 1,2,3,4,,& 5 SHOWN IN THIS PAPER, just stick to plant based material used in this research chickpea, LL RESULTS WERE COMPARING FORMLATIONS WHY ANTIOXIDANTS ASESSED ONLY ARATICUM PULP AD ONLY CHICKPEA EXTRACTS?] ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Tafadzwa Kaseke 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.] 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: PONE-D-24-08819_reviewer AA EDIT 2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307640.r001
Revision 1
5 Jul 2024 Author Response To: Ghulam Khaliq Academic Editor PLOS ONE Subject: Revised version of the manuscript PONE-D-24-08819 Dear Ghulam Khaliq, Thank you by the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. Below are the responses to each point brought up by the Editor's and reviewers #1 and #2. Some changes made were marked in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” and the answers to reviewer’s questions are presented below. Yours sincerely, Corresponding author: Maria Carolina Mesquita Email: maria.carolinams@hotmail.com Post-Graduate Program in Human Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil Phone: +55 (61) 3107 1634 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 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. The manuscript was revised and re-formatted in accordance with Plos One style requirements, including the figures converted to 300 dpi. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [We thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) of Brazil for the support with the scholarship, as well as the financial backing provided by the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF) – Process: 00193-00000104/2019-86.] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. We apologize for this mistake. The text related to financing was removed from the manuscript, and a statement was added to the cover letter for later modification: “Inclusion of the Financial Disclosure Statement: This study received financial support from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF) - Process: 00193-00000104/2019-86. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” 3. 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". Tables have been included as part of the manuscript and individual files have been removed. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. We apologize for the mistake. The files we uploaded as supporting information are documents related to studies involving human (sensory analysis), which were requested at the time of manuscript submission. We have changed the category of these files the "other files" category. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Thank you for providing the opportunity to review the manuscript: Development of a plant-based dessert using araticum pulp and chickpea extract: physicochemical, microbiological, antioxidant, and sensory characterization. The study is quite novel, and relevant considering the demand for plant based foods due to their health benefits. However, some results are missing such as Tables 1 to 4. These results need to be provided in order to make a decision on the manuscript. In the first version of the submitted manuscript, tables were uploaded separately in the submission system, however when the PDF file of the manuscript was built the tables did not appear. We apologize for the error. In this new submission, the tables were included of the manuscript. Abstract The authors should improve the presentation of their results. For instance, rather than just stating the measured attributes values, they should indicate the magnitude of increase or decrease. The authors should include the nutritional analysis results to be able compare their product with dairy products such as yogurt. The results presentation in the abstract was improved. Material and methods How were the fruits sanitized and the pulp extracted from the fruit? The requested information was included in the text (page 5, line 99 – 103). The authors should summarize the method they used to prepare chickpea extract and then refer to Figure 1. The information was summarized in the method section (page 5, line 105 – 111). Determination of centesimal composition and energy value. What do authors mean by centestimal? Is there not a better, common and simpler word that they can use? The word 'centesimal' was replaced by 'chemical' throughout the manuscript. Why did the authors not include a control sample in their microbiological analyses? We understood that you refer to the control sample as formulations elaborated with different proportions of araticum pulp and water or chickpea extract and water. However, in the microbiological analysis our main objective was to study whether the interaction between these two-plant matrices (araticum and chickpea) would be efficient in maintaining the microbiological stability of plant-based dairy alternative dessert formulations during storage. Considering that both matrices have a high content of polyphenols and that these compounds may present distinct antimicrobial activity in separate matrices compared to the mixture of both matrices, we think that this kind of control would not provide relevant information, since our main purpose was to produce a plant-based dairy alternative dessert based on araticum pulp and chickpea extract. Why did the authors not include the relative humidity at 4 °C of their storage facilities. At such low temperature moisture migration between the environment and the product is likely. The relative humidity was included in the material and methods section as suggested. The authors should check if 25,400 xg is really xg not rpm. We are sorry by the mistake. The value was corrected in the text. Why did the authors not measure sensory properties such as consistency or stability? I am quite sure the product did not remain consistent and stable throughout the 28 days of storage. This is important if the experimental idea is to be commercialized and if whether additives are needed or not. We recognize that these parameters are important to ensure that additives are needed or not and for commercialization of the product, however, at this moment only a viscosimeter was available in our faculty. It was included in the discussion section, page 27/ line 554 - 555, the following statement: However, further analysis of other physical properties of these formulations is necessary to assess whether additives are needed or not. Results and discussion. Some results described in the manuscript are missing for instance, Tables 1, 2 and 3. In the first version of the submitted manuscript, tables were uploaded separately in the submission system, however when the PDF file of the manuscript was built the tables did not appear. We apologize for the error. In this new submission, the tables were included of the manuscript. The authors should improve the discussion of their results. For instance, they should describe the formulations fully or put the % of the ingredients in brackets for easy tracking. e.g., F1 (80:20). This makes it easier for the reader to follow. The percentage of ingredients was included throughout the discussion, as suggested. Is it not that the pH of the dessert is related to the organic acids in the fruit used? The authors should be able to link the change in pH to TSS results. It was included in a paragraph in page 16 line 344 - 351. Reviewer #2: 1. THE ABSTRAC SUMMARIZES THE CONTEN: 1 ST PARAGARAPH IS TOO LENGTHY The paragraph has been summarized. 2. AUTHOURS CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES ABOUT FUNDING SOURCE Sorry for the mistake, the funding source was included in the submission system. 3 KEY WORDS MUST BE RE-ARRANGED Keywords have been re-arranged following alphabetic order. 4.ITRODUCTION [INTRODUCTION SHOULD NOT CONTAIN SO MANY FIGURES OF OTHER PEOPLES WORKS] The sentences were summarized, and some data was deleted to improve this aspect. 5. MATERIALS AND METHODS [what quantity of fruits were purchased, stored for how long before commencement of research, where is the design of the experiment, was the design CRD, as laboratory condition? The amount of araticum and chickpeas was included in the material and methods section, as well as the storage time of the pulp. Yes, we used the design CRD, and included the experimental design in material and methods section (page 11, lines 245 - 249). 6. RESULST AND DISCUSSION [rewrite 1ST PARAGRAPH, Centesimal composition was NOT STATED IN METODS WHY PRESENT RESULTS, NO TABLE 1,2,3,4,,& 5 SHOWN IN THIS PAPER, just stick to plant based material used in this research chickpea, LL RESULTS WERE COMPARING FORMLATIONS WHY ANTIOXIDANTS ASESSED ONLY ARATICUM PULP AD ONLY CHICKPEA EXTRACTS?] The 1st paragraph was rewritten according to suggestions. The description of the chemical composition was provided in the materials and methods (item 2.4, page x, lines x-y) section of the original manuscript. Let me know if we do not understand your comment. In the first version of the submitted manuscript, tables were uploaded separately in the submission system, however when the PDF file of the manuscript was built the tables did not appear. We apologize for the error. In this new submission, the tables were included of the manuscript. According to the suggestion, it was excluded from the discussion the literature that is related to other plant-based material that is not chickpea. The antioxidant potential and phenolic concentration were assessed in the araticum pulp and chickpea extract in an attempt to evaluate if one of these matrices could present different responses in these variables over storage period, since their different chemical composition can influence these responses. As can be seen in table 4 chickpea extract showed better stability during storage compared to araticum pulp which explain the different responses of these variables in the formulations. __________________________________________________________________________________________ - We leave the term 'untrained participants' as there was no a specific sensory analysis training for participants to evaluate plant-based desserts. Since we conducted an acceptability test, participants were invited randomly and received only the necessary instructions to participate in the research. - In Figure 2, the asterisk symbol () that demonstrated a statistical difference between the formulations were removed, and capital letters were inserted in their place for greater clarity of the results. - The declaration of conflict of interest was removed from the manuscript, following Plos One guideline. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307640.r002
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Ghulam Khaliq, Editor Development of a plant-based dessert using araticum pulp and chickpea extract: Physicochemical, Microbiological, Antioxidant, and Sensory Characterization PONE-D-24-08819R1 Dear Dr. Maria Carolina Mesquita, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Ghulam Khaliq, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript could be accepted after revision. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307640.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ghulam Khaliq, Editor PONE-D-24-08819R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mesquita, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Ghulam Khaliq Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307640.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 .